one of the most common anti-nuclear arguments these days is basically against conventional water cooled reactors which need a large supply of water (basically a small lake or pond) to provide reliable cooling to the reactors. (this is what those big "smoke stacks" are for) this was made worse recently when europe had a drought and the rivers there were drying up and France had to shut down reactors due to the risk of running out of coolant water

molten salt reactors don't require water for coolant. the molten salt is the coolant (and fuel!) itself, since these reactors run hotter overall. thus they can be built anywhere as long as you pair them with a chemical plant that can produce additional salt when needed (which is very minimal compared to water needs)

as for the meltdown fears, these reactors can't create a steam explosion or other issues relating to water cooled reactors. if they risk meltdown, you simply cut external power and the molten salt starts to solidify which ends the reaction on it's own. water reactors need power (either external or from the reactor) to run pumps to keep them cool. molten salt needs power simply to not shut down.

(i just typed this off the top of my head and if you need to i can find some more detailed sources and info since i may have some things wrong)