Last weekend, Japan was rocked, whipped and literally shattered into pieces by an 8.9-magnitude… Last weekend, Japan was rocked, whipped and literally shattered into pieces by an 8.9-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Days later, the country raced to avert a nuclear meltdown after three nuclear reactors suffered explosions brought on by the geological ass-whipping.

Radiation measurements in Saitama, Japan, are at 40 times normal levels, and radiation levels are at 10 times normal in Tokyo, according to MSNBC. Although not possessing radiation levels high enough to cause harm to humans, countries like China have begun mass evacuations of their citizens from Japan’s northeast.

Now what’s being called the “world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl” has the world questioning the future of nuclear power.

It’s a finicky situation. On the one hand, the world is dangerously reliant on fossil fuels. According to the World Resources Institute, fossil fuels supply about 90 percent of the world’s commercial energy and account for more than 80 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year.

Given this, reliance on fossil fuels is costly and dangerous, especially for countries like Japan, the fourth largest consumer of energy worldwide, and the United States, the largest.

Accordingly, many have viewed Japan’s vast network of 55 operating nuclear power plants, which contribute about 30 percent of the country’s energy, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as the preferable, more environmentally conscious option.

In the United States, nuclear energy has enjoyed a recent spike in bipartisan support, especially in the aftermath of last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Last February, President Barack Obama pledged more than $8 billion in additional loan guarantees to the construction of the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, according to The Washington Post.

And in his 2011 State of the Union address, the president proposed an expansion of $36 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees for the construction of as many as 20 new nuclear plants.

Nuclear energy has also received support from Republican leaders, such as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, and even from some environmentalists.

Stewart Brand, a founder of environmental publication Whole Earth Catalog, explained, “It’s not that something new and important and good had happened with nuclear, it’s that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change,” according to The New York Times.

A March 2010 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans supported nuclear energy. Likewise, according to The Independent, a survey found that 54 percent of people in the United Kingdom would be willing to support the building of new nuclear power stations if it would help solve global warming.

Of course, that still means that nearly half of the population was opposed to nuclear energy even before the crisis in Japan.

Bottom line: The energy crisis is a divisive issue. And it is an incredibly important one.

These days, it seems like most Americans are myopic, occupied with issues like the economy or foreign affairs — things that affect them today. Meanwhile, the energy crisis looms in the distance.

And it’s distressing that it takes a tragedy like the events of last weekend to have people yet again questioning whether nuclear energy has a place in the future of world energy production.

Already, McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have gone on record saying that they still support expanding nuclear power capabilities in the United States, according to The Huffington Post.

But other politicians find the events a cause for concern. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., has called for a moratorium on reactors in seismically active areas and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., a leader in energy reform, recently said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “I think it calls on us here in the U.S., naturally, not to stop building nuclear power plants, but to put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what’s happened in Japan.”

The fact is, our dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous, and we should be looking for energy alternatives. But nuclear energy is too risky. After Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island accidents, engineers worked to make nuclear energy plants safer. And they are safer, but not safe enough.

Most of all, I think all can agree that nuclear power plants should not be constructed in extremely active subduction zones, especially on coasts where they are also susceptible to tsunamis, like in Japan  — or on the California coast, where there are two operating nuclear power plants and four commercial nuclear power plants.

Even if it seems financially counterintuitive, the United States should cease the construction of new nuclear energy plants and certainly must reevaluate the safety of existing plants, especially those on the California coast. As for the $36 billion? We should redirect those funds to wind and solar energy development — they are cleaner and safer options.

E-mail Molly at [email protected].