http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottkramer/2015/08/26/safesleeve-making-your-phone-radiation-free/

...Most importantly, an integrated FCC-certified lab tested radiation-shielding foil not only deflects and absorbs RF, ELF and Thermal radiation to greatly reduce your exposure, but it also blocks RFID signals, so that hackers cannot steal your credit card information by scanning it from afar. And no, the case will not affect phone or battery performance.

https://twitter.com/SaferChemicals/status/734091443405488128

2:40 PM - 21 May 2016

Safer Chemicals
‏@SaferChemicals

BREAKING: A rundown on the improvements and remaining issues still needed in #TSCA reform http://ow.ly/TKdP300rujt

Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine Cover: May 23, 2016 Edition

In this Issue:

Big Pharma is here to help you help them make a bunch of money. Engaging business-forward minds across the globe with influential reporting on global business and financial news every week. Take a look for yourself.

MORE: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-19/the-real-reason-big-pharma-wants-to-help-pay-for-your-prescription

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/agreement_reached_on_lautenberg_chemical_safety_bi.html

Agreement reached on Lautenberg chemical safety bill

Jonathan D. Salant | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on May 20, 2016 at 5:11 PM, updated May 20, 2016 at 5:12 PM

WASHINGTON — Legislation to update a 40-year-old law requiring that chemicals be tested for safety could pass Congress as early as next week as House and Senate lawmakers agreed on a compromise bill.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to test chemicals using "sound and credible science" and impose regulations if they are shown to pose a health risk.

The EPA would set priorities for evaluating chemicals and would not first have to show they pose a potential risk. Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs.

The agreed-upon measure combined elements of the Senate legislation approved in December and the House measure that passed that chamber last June.

<>

"As with any compromise, this legislation balances the priorities and interests of multiple stakeholders, while producing an agreement that pragmatic industry, environmental, public health and labor groups can ultimately support," said former Rep. Cal Dooley (D-Calif.), president and chief executive of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council.

Still, Jeff Tittel, president of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said his organization would oppose the Lautenberg bill because it allows the federal government to prevent states from imposing tougher regulations of chemicals. State restrictions enacted on or after April 22 could be pre-empted by federal regulations, though they could apply for waivers.

"That to us is a deal killer," Tittel said. "I don't think the senator would support weakening protections in New Jersey."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/17/peds.2015-4230

Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3

Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative

Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish

Abbreviations: MV — measles vaccine, NME — nonmedical exemption, VPD — vaccine-preventable disease

Efforts to restrict parents’ ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4230
PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993127

Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Print ISSN 0031-4005
Online ISSN 1098-4275

Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDg

aTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public Health–Seattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=9374

For Immediate Release: May 13th, 2016

Press statement

[center]Comment - Closed Harvard Meeting on Human Genome Synthesis[/center]
According to a recent statement (1), an invitation-only group of roughly 150 scientists, lawyers, and entrepreneurs gathered at Harvard on Tuesday May 10 to discuss making a complete synthetic human genome from scratch, and inserting it into a cell line. The event was closed to media.

Knowledge of the Harvard meeting emerged in a critical commentary co-authored by Stanford University bioengineer Drew Endy, who has been deeply involved in developing and promoting synthetic biology for many years, and Northwestern University bioethicist Laurie Zoloth, who has participated in numerous efforts to develop guidelines and public policy about emerging biotechnologies.

Endy and Zoloth report that the meeting “was originally organized to focus on 'deliverables and industry involvement,’” and that one of the topics on the agenda was “changing the human genome itself.” On Twitter, Endy posted part of an invitation to the meeting, which asked participants to refrain from talking with the media about it.

“From what we know so far, it’s hard to tell much about the actual technical purpose, business plan, or public relations agenda of the convenors. If these reports are accurate, the meeting looks like a move to privatize the current conversation about heritable genetic modification,” said Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society, referring to the ongoing controversy about the prospect of using new gene editing techniques to alter the genes passed on to future children and generations.

Both in the US and globally, opposition to heritable genetic modification is strong. A “gene editing summit” in December 2015 convened by the national scientific academies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and China concluded with a statement by its organizing committee that “it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until...there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”

Though the December “summit” was widely covered by news and social media, and featured speakers from a range of disciplines, it was criticized by the Center for Genetics and Society and others for being insufficiently inclusive. “A semi-secret meeting of scientists and business people to make plans about synthesizing the human genome is a new low in scientific accountability,” Darnovsky said.

“Fully synthetic humans are not close at hand,” she continued. “But genetically modified humans could be. If the next move from the convenors of the Harvard meeting is a splashy announcement about a privately financed moon-shot project, that would really make a stark contrast to the promise of broad societal consensus.”

(1) Should We Synthesize A Human Genome?, by Drew Endy and Laurie Zoloth, May 10, 2016
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/102449#files-area

####

The Center for Genetics and Society is a non-profit public affairs and policy advocacy organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive biotechnologies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/media/knight-first-amendment-institute-columbia-university.html

Columbia University to Open a First Amendment War Room

By MIKE McPHATE
MAY 17, 2016

The fight to preserve freedom of the press is getting a $60 million war room.

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Columbia University announced on Tuesday that they would team up to create an institute at the university’s Manhattan campus dedicated to expanding in the digital age the freedoms of speech and the press outlined in the First Amendment.

The Knight First Amendment Institute would take on legal battles that newsrooms have found increasingly too costly to pursue on their own, the groups said in a statement.

“While the digital age has opened up new opportunities for accountability journalism, we need to fill the void and continue to champion free expression through litigation, research and education,” said Lee C. Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar and Columbia’s president.

The institute would also seek to influence legal debates over First Amendment protections that have faced new scrutiny through the lens of an Internet-connected society. Among the issues of concern: online privacy rights, free expression on college campuses and whistle-blower protections, an issue that has gained urgency with the prolific filing of criminal charges by the Obama administration.

<>

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chairman-of-the-executive-board-and-ceo-of-merck-kgaa-karl-ludwig-kley-elected-to-verizon-board-of-directors-300173419.html

Chairman of the Executive Board and CEO of Merck KGaA Karl-Ludwig Kley elected to Verizon Board of Directors

Nov 05, 2015, 13:00 ET from Verizon Communications Inc.

NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, Nasdaq: VZ) today announced the election of Dr. Karl-Ludwig Kley, chairman of the executive board and chief executive officer of Merck KGaA, to the Verizon Board of Directors, effective November 5.

"Karl is an accomplished executive who brings to Verizon significant leadership experience as CEO of an innovative, global operation that is navigating a highly competitive, complex and rapidly changing ecosystem. He has extensive expertise in corporate finance and critical capabilities in strategy and operations," said Lowell McAdam, Verizon chairman and chief executive officer. "We are very pleased to have Karl join our board."

The addition of Kley brings Verizon's total board membership to 13.

Kley has been chief executive officer and chairman of the executive board of Merck KGaA in Darmstadt, Germany since 2007. Prior to this, he was appointed vice chairman of the executive board in September 2006. Before joining Merck KGaA, Kley was a member of the executive board of Deutsche Lufthansa AG from 1998 to 2006, where he served as chief financial officer. From 1982 to 1998, Kley worked for Bayer AG in a variety of positions, including as head of corporate finance and investor relations.

Kley holds a J.D. from the University of Munich.

<>