TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The vote — which prompted environmental activists still in council chambers after four hours to break into applause — approved an ordinance that bans the transport, handling and storage of coal and petroleum coke at bulk material facilities or terminals in Oakland. “We want jobs that people can have, and have a long life and they don’t have to rely upon a job of desperation,” said Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney after the vote. “I just believe that we can do better in Oakland.” The ordinance requires a second vote. City leaders have wrestled with the issue for more than a year, as detractors and supporters of the proposed marine terminal argued over the environmental dangers of bringing millions of tons of coal through the area and the economic benefits of good-paying union jobs. The terminal is part of a larger makeover of an army base that closed in 1999, eliminating thousands of jobs. The proposed terminal is in West Oakland, a historically black neighborhood that’s among the poorest and most polluted in the region. The council approved the project before the coal proposal was made. It’s uncertain whether the terminal will continue without shipping coal. A lawyer for the Oregon Bulk and Oversized Terminal on Monday sent the council a letter detailing potential legal consequences. “Politically, no quantity of handling coal or petcoke under whatever extraordinary standard will be tolerated,” said David Smith. “While that may accomplish a political outcome, it is only the first steps towards an unfortunate legal outcome.” City leaders said they were confident they could overcome a legal challenge. More than 150 people on both sides rallied outside the building Monday before the evening meeting. They packed the council’s chamber, cheering and booing as speakers testified. At times, it was so hard to hear speakers that the council president had to ask security to remove some people from the room. Coal proponents railed at the council for what they saw as a pre-ordained vote. They argued that any environmental impact would be mitigated by transporting coal in covered rail cars that are unloaded underground. “We agree 1,000 percent that West Oakland is polluted,” said Ron Muhammad, a fourth-generation resident of West Oakland. “But the project has a plan to mitigate it, to address it, so since the public health portion is taken out of the picture, then it goes back to the jobs.” On the other side, coal opponents argued there was no way to keep coal dust from escaping into the air, and that rail shipment would worsen the health of children already disadvantaged by poverty and bad air. “This whole notion of coal-covered cars is rather ridiculous to say the least because it’s never been done before,” said Derrick Muhammad of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which opposes the shipment of coal. Among the speakers were residents of Utah who were furious that their state lawmakers had pumped more than $50 million in public money to build the facility, hoping to spur investment in the state’s rural counties. Claim: Oakland council bans coal shipments, citing health risks.

SOLUTION: The Oakland City Council voted unanimously Monday night to kill a plan to use a proposed marine terminal to transport Utah coal to Asia, calling such shipments public health and safety hazards. Backers argued the project would bring needed jobs to an impoverished part of town.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: There’s no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that “anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years.” That’s helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: “The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse.” It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are “uncommon,” but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them “common” in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn’t explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don’t explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, “so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low.” There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren’t involved in the study. The study’s authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that’s laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that “some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch.”  However, the story doesn’t explain on what basis some statins are “more effective.” In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients — reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn’t mention lifestyle interventions — diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor

SOLUTION: The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines “haven’t adequately considered” the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn’t crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don’t already have heart disease. As a result, there’s concern that they are being overused. It’s laudable that some news organizations — including CNN as well as NPR — highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: “No one is going to dump fuel where these guys did it over populated areas and schools. It’s a pretty outrageous thing,” said Ross Aimer, CEO of Aero Consulting Experts and a retired United Airlines pilot. “They should have gone over the ocean or landed heavyweight.” Delta Air Lines said Flight 89 to Shanghai had an engine problem after takeoff Tuesday and needed to quickly return. The Boeing 777-200 landed safely after circling back over Los Angeles while dumping fuel to reach a safe landing weight, the airline said in a statement. Los Angeles County firefighters were called to schools where nearly 60 children and adults were examined for minor skin and lung irritations, but none required hospitalization. Fire Inspector Sky Cornell also said monitoring showed the vapor wasn’t flammable. When a plane is forced to turn back after takeoff, the weight of a full load of fuel carries a risk of damaging the jet during landing. That can be costly for airlines to fix. And even if there isn’t damage, airlines try to avoid overweight landings because they are required to inspect planes, which puts them out of service. When turning back with a full fuel load, pilots have three choices, according to John Cox, a safety consultant and former airline pilot: burn the fuel, which can take hours, dump it or land overweight. In case of a fire, he said, pilots will dump as much fuel as quickly as they can and land. A less dangerous situation tends to lead to using up or dumping fuel. According to recorded radio communications, air traffic control asked the Delta crew if they wanted to return to LAX immediately or linger over the ocean “to hold and burn fuel.”  “We’re going to go ahead,” the pilot or co-pilot responded. “We’ve got it back under control. ... We’re not critical.” “OK, so you don’t need to hold or dump fuel or anything like that?” the controller asked. “Ah, negative,” was the response. But the plane did dump fuel as it headed back. The Delta crew reported a compressor stall in the engine “but they got the engine back under control ... they were not in an immediate threat condition, and they started out over water,” Cox said. “Why they continued to dump fuel at low altitude when they weren’t in a fuel-dumping area, and didn’t advise ATC (air traffic control) that they were dumping fuel — those are questions this crew is going to have to answer.” The Federal Aviation Administration said it is investigating, citing procedures that “call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomizes and disperses before it reaches the ground.” Scott Martin, a propulsion expert at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, said a stall puts more pressure on the compressor, and the Delta pilots might have assumed the worst — that they could soon face an engine failure that could cause parts to break off and become shrapnel capable of piercing the fuselage, fuel tanks or hydraulic lines. That might also explain why they were flying at such low altitude — to avoid putting more stress on the troubled engine, he said. “They may have decided, ‘We don’t have time to fly higher and dump the fuel, we need to get the fuel off now and get back down to the runway,’” Martin said. A Delta official spoke at a press conference with school officials Wednesday but offered no further insight into the fuel dumping. “I know that there are a lot of questions about the process that was followed and those kinds of things,” said Dana Debel, Delta’s managing director of government affairs. “There is an ongoing investigation that was opened immediately after the flight landed back.” Little is known about the health effects of exposure to kerosene-type jet fuel, according to the federal Health and Human Services Department. Studies using military personnel suggest it can affect the nervous system, but that research involved people who work around jet fuel all the time. Rats that were fed kerosene showed no increase in tumors, the agency said in a 2017 summary. The Los Angeles County Public Health Department said students that were exposed to the fuel vapor were sent home with instructions on how to clean themselves with soap and water and to thoroughly wash their clothes and to discard them if the odor remained. “Some exposed individuals have experienced mild symptoms such as skin irritation and upper respiratory irritation such as cough,” the department said in a statement. “These symptoms are generally expected to improve on their own.” Delta sent cleaning crews to work with Los Angeles Unified School District crews to clean outside areas of the campuses and all reopened Wednesday. __ Condon reported from New York City. Associated Press reporters David Koenig in Dallas and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report. Claim: Aviation experts puzzled after airliner dumps fuel over city.

SOLUTION:
Some aviation experts said Wednesday that they were puzzled after the crew of a commercial airliner decided to dump fuel at low altitude during an emergency landing, causing a vapor to fall on schoolyards and neighborhoods east of Los Angeles International Airport.