I particularly dislike causes I support resorting to lies to support their arguments - it damages them so much in the long term.
Take this from the linked post from Greenpeace:
"Known uranium reserves will last for roughly 50 years at present consumption rates, but the 438 plants operating world-wide produce only 16% of global requirements. If the world's entire electricity needs were to be met by nuclear power, then reserves of high-grade uranium ore would be used up within three to four years..... So as a serious long-term energy source, nuclear power is a non-starter. "
Total and obvious rubbish. No-one has been looking for uranium for a while, and there'll be more easily found. Plus there's thorium to find too - approximately 3 times as abundant. So multiply reserves by ten. Then, of course, we'd move to a breeder fuel cycle which if 50 to 100 times as efficient in its use of ore as current reactor systems - and the truth is, we've got enough around to last us for at least a thousands years.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ is a useful link.
The real dangers of relying on nuclear power, on which I suspect I and Greenpeace agree, are accidents, radioactive waste and the spread of nuclear weapons. But to be found out in such a silly lie devalues all their arguments, the good with the bad. Why do they do it?
Anonymous has pointed out the counter-arguments to my concerns - The Nuclear Option by Bernard Cohen, online at http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html Have not yet had time to try to pick holes in it.