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.

Paragraph: We’ll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on the available methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests — the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test — when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there’s “a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation” from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient’s doctor’s office. These details establish the methods’ availability. It also quotes one source as recommending against the use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what’s novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You’re Willing To Collect Your Poop
This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the story–overall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it’s important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn’t go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public’s health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the “gold standard” and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news story does a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.

Paragraph: NCR Corp. will fund the dredging of contaminated sediments and removal of an aging dam in the Kalamazoo River under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Michigan, officials told The Associated Press ahead of an official announcement. “This is a big step forward toward cleaning up the river,” said John Irving, a deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The Kalamazoo is polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from paper recycling mills. Used for ink removal, the chemicals were discharged into the river from the 1950s through the mid-1970s. They also seeped into groundwater and surface waters from landfills where mill waste was dumped. In addition to the river, the contamination zone in Allegan and Kalamazoo counties includes a roughly 3-mile (5-kilometer) section of a tributary called Portage Creek, as well as mill properties, riverbanks and floodplains. It is on the federal Superfund list of hazardous sites. Signs posted along the river warn anglers not to eat the fish they catch. The EPA has overseen the removal of nearly 450,000 cubic yards (344,000 cubic meters) of soil and sediment from the area since 1998, in addition to cleaning up 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the river and riverbanks. Eighty-two acres (33 hectares) of landfills containing PCBs have been covered with layers of clay, topsoil and vegetation to prevent the toxins from leaching into groundwater. But much remains to be done. The agreement between NCR and the government calls for the company to pay at least $135.7 million for cleanup work that is expected to take an additional 10-15 years. Among the tasks: dismantling Trowbridge Dam in Allegan County. The dam, which was built in 1898 to supply electric power to Kalamazoo, is in poor shape and has been over-topped by high water. It is the highest-priority dam removal planned in Michigan, according to the state Department of Natural Resources, which set aside $2.9 million in May to get the project underway. The first step is to stabilize the structure so that it won’t collapse while a contractor dredges PCB-laced sediments from a 2.4-mile (3.9-kilometer) river section upstream, which is expected to take three years, said Paul Ruesch, the EPA’s on-site coordinator. NCR funds will pay for that work and for razing the dam when the sediment removal is complete, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark told the AP. “You want to get that sediment out before taking the dam out, so you’re not letting the sediments wash further downstream,” he said. The removal of tainted soils in several floodplain spots is also funded under the deal. And the company will also pay $76.5 million to the EPA to cover past and future costs of the river cleanup; $27 million to other federal and state agencies for damages to natural resources; and $6 million to the state for past and future costs. The proposed settlement was filed in federal court Wednesday. The public will get 30 days to comment, after which the government agencies could make revisions before requesting final court approval. NCR spokesman Scott Sykes said the company had no comment. The agreement represents a significant milestone in the overall cleanup, which is expected to end up costing about $851 million, Clark said. Payment negotiations are continuing with other companies that share responsibility for the pollution, including Georgia-Pacific, International Paper and Weyerhaeuser. The Kalamazoo River project is among those on the Superfund list designated by the Trump administration for special attention because of cleanup delays, Irving said. “This settlement represents substantial progress in the cleanup and restoration of the Kalamazoo River,” said Liesl Clark, Director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. In addition to protecting public health and the environment, she said, it will fund “projects to restore natural resources and help compensate the public for lost recreational opportunities within this important Southwest Michigan watershed.” While “extremely welcome,” the deal won’t raise enough money to finish the cleanup and agencies should continue pressing the polluters to do more, said Kenneth Kornheiser, president of the Kalamazoo River Watershed Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. “I appreciate the monumental size of the problem, but somebody created the problem and needs to be responsible for remediating the damage,” he said. ___ Follow John Flesher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnflesher Claim: Company to pay $245M toward cleanup of Kalamazoo River PCBs.
One of the companies responsible for polluting an 80-mile (129-kilometer) stretch of river and floodplains in southwestern Michigan with toxic chemicals will pay at least $245.2 million to advance a cleanup effort that began more than 20 years ago, federal officials said Wednesday.

Paragraph: Gains in life expectancy contrast with Americans’ unhealthy behaviors, which have led to a 28 percent adult obesity rate, a diabetes rate of nearly 10 percent and a high blood pressure rate of more than 30 percent, according to United Health Foundation’s 2012 America’s Health Rankings. All three conditions are considered risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Since 1990, premature deaths have declined by 18 percent, cardiovascular deaths have fallen 35 percent, and cancer deaths have slipped by 8 percent, the report said. Americans’ life expectancy was 78.5 years in 2009, 1.7 years above the level in 2000, the report said. “As a nation, we’ve made extraordinary gains in longevity over the past decades, but as individuals we are regressing in our health,” said Dr. Reed Tuckson, a medical adviser at the United Health Foundation and chief of medical affairs at the UnitedHealth Group. Among the 24 different metrics involved in calculating the nation’s health are a variety of factors such as smoking, violent crime and a lack of health insurance. The report, now in its 23rd year, incorporates data from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Census Bureau as well as the FBI, among other sources. Vermont was found to be the healthiest U.S. state thanks in part to a low incidence of infectious diseases, a low violent crime rate and a high rate of health insurance among its residents. Mississippi and Louisiana were found to be the unhealthiest states because of a high prevalence of obesity, diabetes and a low birth weight among infants, among other factors. Claim: Americans living longer, with unhealthy lifestyles: report.

Americans have longer, but not necessarily healthier, lives due to high rates of preventable chronic disease, according to an annual report on the nation’s health released on Tuesday.