''Otbet bankS ca\\ ine. 1 ca\\ atv\B·'' saJS -sernard fran~e\, of f rankart furniture. "Bare\)' a ....,ee\{ goes b)' . .,1tnout a call t1orn a su9e1-s1«d ban\{ as\{\n9 {of our bus\ness. eut ....,e ban\{ \111\tn uJll\B· "\ne s\)eed and qua\\t)' o{ uJll\B's serv\ce \s sul>erb· p..nd \ dea\ ....,\tn tne vres\dent and departrn••' neads .,neo I oeed to. not a 'fllanager' ....,no ....,as a c\ef\{ )'esterda)' and nas a " c\er\{'s autnor\t)' even toda)'· 630 fi\th j\venue, {2!'\.'/., \ 2) !'\.'/. 54\-S07 lOl l l0 Member FDIC Closed on all Jewish Holidays THEeEWISH BSERVER THE JEWISH OBSERVER (ISSN 0021-6615) is published monthly, except July and August, by the Agudath Israel of America, 5 Beekman Street, New York, N. Y. 10038. Second class postage paid at New York, N.Y. Subscription $15.00 per year; two years, $27.00; three years. $36.00 outside of the in this issue ... United States, US funds only. $20.00 in Europe and Israel. $25.00 in So. Africa and Australia. Single copy, $2.00. Send address changes Visits With The Chofetz Chaim to The Jewish Observer, 5 Beek­ man St., N.Y. N.Y. 10038. Printed Rabbi Mendel Zaks Remembers His Saintly in the U.S.A. Father-in-Law* ............................... 8 RABBI N1ssoN WotPJN A Shabbos With the Chofetz Chaim, Editor Rabbi Shimon Schwab• ........................... 15 Editorial Board Two Winters in Radin, Rabbi Alexander Linchner* .... 19 DR. ERNST BODENHEIMER Chairman Close to Every Man, Closer to G-d, Berl Belsky* ..... 21 RABBI JOSEPH ELIAS Learning to Speak With Responsibility, JOSEPH fRJEDENSON RABB! NOSSON SCHERMAN Rabbi Mordechai Giffer* . ................................ 23 RABB! MOSHE SHERER The Chofetz Chaim's Messages to Our Generation, Rabbi Management Board Avrohom Pam,• prepared for publication by Matis Blum ... 27 NAFTOLJ HIRSCH ISAAC K!RZNER Compromise on the Great Divide, Nissan Wolpin .......... 32 N ACHUM 5 TElN PostScripts: Remembering Business Manager Straw Hat in a Sea of Black, Or. Bernard Fryshman ... 35 PESACH H. KONSTAM "Hazkarah" in Telshe, Tzvi Baruch Hollander .... , .... 36 THE }£WISH OssrRV£R does not assume responsibility for the Letters to the Editor .......... , ........................ 37 Kashrus of any product or ser­ " All articles marked with an asterisk (*) have been transcribed from addresses or vice advertised in its pages. informal talks, most of them in Yiddish, and have been prepared for publication by the editorial staff, unless otherwise indicated. © Copyright 1984 JO JAN. 84, VOL. XVII, NO. 5 SHEVAT 5744 ~ -- ~~--- energy issues was sent to a purely Most felt we should proceed rapidly. random sample of; (1 )scientists listed This high level of support is echoed in American Men and Women ofSci­ in Table 2, which notes positive atti- ence, (2) scientists in energy-related Table 2 disciplines, and (3) scientists in fields SCIENTISTS' ATTITUDES ON NUCLEAR closely related to nuclear energy. ENERGY ISSUES The study was patt of a large proj­ Asked how best to proceed with ect directed by Professors Stanley nuclear energy (see Table 1), an over­ Rothman and S. Robett Lichter and whelming majority from all groups felt ~$!!$/.,<$; "5 .,,,<l'. sponsored by the Research Institute that the nation should continue with ~I; 65% '75% 99% Risks acceptable of International Change at Columbia the development of nuclear energy. Willing to locate University, Smith College, and the 69 80 98 nuclear plants in Thble 1 their cities Graduate Program in Science, Tech­ VIEWS OF SCIENTISTS ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY Enough knowledge nology, and Public Policy at George 75 91 100 to solve nuclear Washington University. problems tudes toward the acceptability of risk posed by nuclear plants; the scientists' Proceed rapidly personal willingness to have a nuclear In mid-1980, little more than a year Proceed slowly plant located where they live; and after the accident at Three Mile 0 Halt development the scientists' confidence that enough Island, a detailed questionnaire on 3 0 Dismantle plants knowledge exists to solve the scien- tific and technical problems posed The questionnaire also sought to fourth, expects such a significant by nucle-ar energy. learn what potential problems within contribution from solar heat, or the industry were considered most writes off nuclear energy altogether. serious. Most of the anti-nuclear groups' Table 5 Expanding the study leaders rated most of the problems as RESOURCES THAT WILL MAKE MAJOR Such positive results were somewhat "very serious." None of the problems CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS surprising to the researchers. They was considered that serious by a major­ decided to expand their study. This ity of the other decision makers. Only was a time when public concern was high-level waste disposal was con­ high and the nuclear regulatory envi­ sidered very serious by a majority of persons within any of these seven ronment was toughening consider­ 50 57 50 63 84 67 79 Oil groups. ably, so the researchers wondered 42 44 41 34 48 52 67 Natural gas whether decision makers in the The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of Nuclear 0 52 24 28 52 25 3 nuclear field would be as wary of 1982 has addressed this problem by fission nuclear power plants as the man in establishing a procedure and a time­ 42 I 0 3 12 IO 2 Solar heat JOO 16 29 19 52 Conservation the street. table leading to the safe disposal of 50 38 To find out, the researchers mailed nuclear waste. The concept of bury- The researchers found it especially questionnaires to top decision makers Table4 surprising that government agencies in seven different categories: GENERAL ATI'ITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR which frequently have been critical • the nuclear power industry ENERGY of nuclear energy were nevertheless • the financial community looking to this resource for a large • the Nuclear Regulatory Commission contribution. In fact, the other regu­ • other regulatory agencies involved lators' projection precisely matched with nuclear energy that of the nuclear power industry. 100% 2% 0% 4% 37% 12% Risks • members of Congress who were 25% unal-ceptabk ery confident involved with nuclear policy 0 94 61 72 60 43 74 we can solve • outside experts (scientists, social oblems scientists and consultants involved 100 2 0 7 28 28 5 ·ouldlive The debate continues over the risks with nuclear energy issues) 0 97 83 94 60 53 88 ear reactors and rewards of nuclear electricity. In • groups with professed anti-nuclear the heat of the debate, it's easy to get views. ing the waste in stable geological for­ the impression that almost everyone mations deep in the earth has been The results were again surprising. has turned against nuclear electricity. As Thble 3 indicates, outside experts endorsed by the National Academy This study shows that such an impres­ and financiers were as united in their of Sciences. sion would be incorrect. Table 3 All energy sources have problems­ POLICY PREFERENCES ON NUCLEAR environmental, safety, reliability, cost. DEVELOPMENT s11n.n."ce.s c~tn. \.Ve Perhaps someday we'll find a perfect c ~:>vu:~ t 0.1111 energy source, but until then we must There was more agreement when the provide for America's energy needs leaders were asked which energy with sources we can count on today. sources would make the greatest con­ 0% 93% 94% 65% 54% 40'Yo 69% ~~~d tributions to our needs by the yea.r r-------------------------~ Proceed For a full report on the surveys discussed 0 6 25 40 26 5 35 slowly 2000. The questionnaire listed 16 here, send for our free brochure, "Nuclear Halt possible sources ranging alphabeti­ Electricity-Who Stands Where." Just fill 33 2 0 0 8 20 5 development cally from biomass to wind power. out this coupon and maiJ it to: 67 0 Dismantle U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness 0 0 13 0 0 plants As Table 5 illustrates, most groups viewed coal as the primary energy P.O. Box 37012 Washington. D.C. 20013 support of nuclear energy develop­ source, followed by oil and then ment as were industry executives. either natural gas, nuclear fission, or The only significant opposition came conservation. The anti-nuclear groups l from the heads of the anti-nuclear are the only dissenters, rating con'ier­ i ADDRESS ___________ groups. A few members of Congress vation as their top choice, solar heat as I and some regulators also expressed a major contributor and dismissing : CITY STATE ___ Z!P __ I opposition. (It should be noted that nuclear fission altogether. No other : C1lQJ response from Congress was low in group ranks conservation higher than ~-------------------------~ number.) Thble 4 reinforces the pattern. Major­ ities of all decision-making sectors except the anti-nuclear groups be­ lieved nuclear plants safe, the risks acceptable, the problems solvable, and they would be willing to live near a reactor. Starting Janu~17th on El Al TEL MOSHE TEL YOSSI TEL CHAYA TEL RIVKA TEL TZVI TEL SORA TEL ARON TEL EVERYONE Only El Al can fly you to Israel and back for only $599, with no stops. No purchase restrictions. And no skimping on service. Take advantage and take your family anytime from January 17th through March 3rd. (On March 4th, the fare goes up to $699.) Enjoy the sites for a minimum of six days, but no longer than sixty. Sorry, no stop-overs are allowed. What shall you do with the money you save in the air? Spend it on land, of course-in any of Israel's fabulous hotels and restaurants. Or, if you prefer, you can now have the EI Al Sunsation Six Package-five nights in a lovely hotel, a rental car for five days and airfare-all wrapped up for only $695~ (A savings of almost $150.) Call your Travel Agent today: Or call El Al at 1-800-223-6700.