Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: Novacyt said the FDA’s approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. “The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt’s growing role in tackling this pandemic,” said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis. Claim: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.

A: Novacyt, a healthcare company specializing in clinical diagnostics, announced on Monday approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulator for its product aimed at testing for coronavirus.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Phony marijuana targeted by recent state legislation sounds worse than the real thing, if you believe Georgia’s governor. Chase’s Law strengthens a ban on ""synthetic marijuana,"" ground-up plant material laced with chemicals that mimic marijuana. Chase Burnett, the bill’s namesake, was found dead in March in a hot tub at his Fayette County home, a packet of the drugs nearby. He was 16. The bill passed with overwhelming support. On March 27, Gov. Nathan Deal signed it into law. A press release warned of synthetic marijuana’s dangers:  ""As the usage has dramatically increased, instances of violence, bodily harm and even death have risen with it,"" it said. We’ve heard that the drug is nasty stuff. But what’s this about violence, bodily harm and death? A Deal spokeswoman sent PolitiFact Georgia news stories and poison control data to prove the governor’s point. We also talked to researchers and law enforcement officials and reviewed news stories and scientific studies. The form of synthetic marijuana that’s sparking so much concern is sold at head shops and gas stations under brand names such as ""Spice"" and ""K2."" Georgia made it a felony to manufacture and sell it in 2010. Chase’s Law tries to keep underground chemists from tweaking their recipes to get around state restrictions. There’s little scholarly research on the drug, which appears to be new to the U.S.  Federal labs first detected these drugs in November 2008, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The earliest U.S. news story we found about its rising popularity appeared in a Hutchinson  Kan., newspaper in November 2009. All signs suggest that synthetic marijuana use is increasing dramatically, but data is in short supply. Workers at the American Association of Poison Control Centers began tracking synthetic marijuana calls in 2010 after they noticed more inquiries, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact Georgia. In 2010, they received 2,906  calls; in 2011, there were 6,959. About 11 percent of high school seniors reported using synthetic marijuana in the past year, according to 2011 results of an annual survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It was the first time researchers asked about the drug. Existing data support Deal’s claim that reports of bodily harm have climbed. Georgia Poison Center call data show 10 users were admitted to a hospital’s critical care unit in 2010 after using the drug. Forty-five were admitted in 2011. Rapid heartbeat, agitation, drowsiness, vomiting, hallucinations and nausea were among the drug’s most common effects, researchers have found. Media accounts report drug users injured in car crashes, falls and other accidents -- some fatal. Whether synthetic marijuana is directly responsible for deaths -- and whether they’re increasing -- is a more complicated issue. We found no published studies on the drug’s lethality, but there have been ""scattered reports of deaths,"" said Lloyd Johnston, a University of Michigan professor who conducted the National Institute on Drug Abuse survey. A count of news stories suggests there are more deadly cases. But whether the drug is a direct cause or contributing factor is not clear in some instances. Consider Burnett’s death. Toxicology tests are still in the works. Whether the official cause of death was drowning, the drug or something else is unsettled. Georgia Bureau of Investigation spokesman John Bankhead told PolitiFact Georgia of two other recent deaths: We found other accounts of synthetic marijuana-related deaths. For example, a South Carolina coroner ruled that it was directly responsible for the October death of a college basketball player who collapsed during warm-up, according to multiple news accounts. PolitiFact Georgia found less support for Deal’s claim about violence. We found no published studies on the subject. News stories, however, suggest there’s cause for concern. For instance: To sum up:  Evidence supports Deal’s claim that use of the drug has ""dramatically increased,"" as has synthetic marijuana-related ""bodily harm."" Some evidence suggests that deaths have risen, too. The link between the drug and violence is less clear. News accounts suggest there is an increase in both, but we found so few cases it’s hard to tell. Deal’s statement could use clarification. Still, it earns a ." Claim: As the usage [of synthetic marijuana] has dramatically increased, instances of violence, bodily harm and even death have risen with it.

A: "Deal: Fake marijuana use rising, connected to death, violence and ""bodily harm"""
****
Q: Paragraph: "The Portland City Council is set to vote early next month on whether to fluoridate the city’s drinking water -- and a ‘yes’ vote looks all but certain. City Commissioner Nick Fish said as much in a statement that started bluntly ""I believe it is time to add fluoride to Portland’s drinking water."" Part of his rationale, he explained in the statement, are the potential savings fluoridation offers. ""In fact, cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation,"" he wrote. We thought the topic was timely enough that we ought to do a quick check on this would-be fact. (Full disclosure: The Oregonian used the same fact in a Page 1 article on the subject of fluoridation.) We called Fish’s office and spoke with Emily York, one of the commissioner’s policy coordinators. She sent us a fact sheet from the Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth Coalition that laid out the economic case in favor of fluoridation, including the $38 figure that Fish used. The figure, the fact sheet noted, came from a 2001 study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry by Susan Griffin, Karl Jones and Scott Tomar. It took some time, but we were able to get our hands on a copy of the study. A quick read revealed that the authors had indeed found significant savings from fewer instances of tooth decay and resulting dental care when communities fluoridated their water supplies. (PolitiFact Oregon recognizes that fluoridation has strong opponents who raise other issues -- but our purpose here is simply to examine the possible cost savings.) To get to the $38 figure, you need to do a little math. For a large community like Portland, the study’s authors estimated that fluoridation costs about 50 cents per person. Then it goes on to give a range of possible dental cost savings per person --  from $2.99 to $56.07, with a most likely savings (base case in financial jargon) of $19.12 per person for the 50 cents spent  Just double the $19.12 in savings -- because that’s how much you get for half a dollar -- and you wind up with $38 in savings for each $1 spent. That’s a pretty decent return, to be sure. Now, there are a few caveats here. The study explicitly states that it does not take into account overhead costs of fluoridation or possible health issues that stem from fluoridation, such as dental fluorosis, which the study says ""are negligible."" We contacted one of the study’s authors, Scott Tomar, who teaches at the College of Dentistry at the University of Florida. In an e-mail he said the bottom line of the decade-old study was that ""that community water fluoridation saves money under almost any scenario. It is actually one of extremely few public health initiatives that can make such a claim. Based on our analyses, an 18 to 1 return on investment is a reasonable estimate for Portland."" We wanted something a little more specific, however, so we took a look at the actual numbers Portland would be facing. The figures are a little different for the Portland area because it’ll cost more than the estimated 50 cents per person to fluoridate. According to early estimates, it’ll cost the city about $5 million to get the project started and then about $575,000 annually from there on to fluoridate water for about 900,000 people. We worked the math and that means in the first year, Portland area residents would save about $3 in dental costs for every $1 invested. After that, it’d cost closer to 64 cents per person to fluoridate the water, meaning a savings of about $30 for each $1 spent. Fish was measured in his comments. He said that ""cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation"" and, indeed, that was the estimate of one article that appeared in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Furthermore, the findings of this article are highlighted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its website on the subject. The savings for Portland, however, are slimmer, and we think that’s important context that is missing. We find this statement ." Claim: "Nick Fish Says ""cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation."

A:
Do cities really save $38 for every $1 they spend on fluoridation?
****