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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "State Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Gardens Democrat running for the congressional seat now held by Kendrick Meek, is making an unusual boast about her accomplishments as a school board member: She says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing. ""Here is what she says on her campaign Web site: ""As a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board, Senator Wilson introduced reading labs and an African-American history curriculum into our schools, as well as a dirty-dancing ban in our community. ""She reiterated that claim in a March 9, 2009 press release announcing her campaign and on her Facebook page -- so there's no doubt she's against kids engaging in nasty booty moves. Pelvic thrusts aren't usually mentioned in congressional campaigns, so we jumped at the chance to explore whether she truly had introduced a ban. First, some background on dirty dancing. To many, the phrase conjurs up memories of the 1987 movie starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Remember the story? Grey plays a good girl nicknamed ""Baby"" who is on a family vacation at a Catskills resort. She stumbles upon a room where the working-class crew -- including Johnny, a beer-swigging-shirt-unbuttoned dance instructor played by Swayze -- are grinding their scantily clad bodies wrapped around each other in Do You Love Me. Johnny teaches Baby to dance -- among other, ahem, lessons -- and they fall in love. She learns some choreographed dance moves that are more of the gaze-into-each-other's-eyes variety than the make-your-grandma-blush type. In one famous scene, he lifts her by her hips as she is dripping wet in a lake. A decade later, the Miami-Dade school board took up the topic. There was no mention of the movie in the articles we found about the mid 1990s discussions, but there was plenty of harrumphing about kids dancing in sexually suggestive ways. ""I've seen it in little tiny elementary school children. I couldn't take it, "" Wilson said in a Nov. 19, 1995, Miami Herald article which stated that she asked school administrators to hold a meeting on the topic. ""I don't think it sets a good standard for our district. We cannot allow (the dancing kids) to degrade the school district or themselves."" In a 1997 op-ed, school board member Wilson said she was considering introducing a ban. ""It has been called 'dirty dancing,' but it's really nothing more than simulated sexual intercourse. Outrageously, too many folks involved with Dade County's public schools -- including teachers, administrators, and parents who ought to know better -- call it 'cheerleading,' 'marching,' or other types of school-sponsored student performance. Whatever it's called, it's vulgar and degrading. It has no place in our schools, on our playgrounds, or in our students' lives. So, imagine my disgust and dismay when I marched in Dade's Martin Luther King Day Parade earlier this year and saw Dade high school cheerleaders bumping and grinding their way down Martin Luther King Boulevard."" In a July 1997 news article, she was quoted saying, ""I've seen horrendous behavior. I saw a band member bend over and a female majorette come from behind and simulate actual intercourse. I almost passed out, but people in the stands were applauding. ""Rather than calling it a ""dirty dancing ban,"" it was known as ""Guideline 25B: Student dance performances and/or productions: Procedures for promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment. ""The board's explanation of the rule said that cheerleading, dance and band performances at events, performances or educational settings ""are essential to the establishment and maintenance of an atmosphere that fosters cultural and artistic exchanges. However the board recognizes that certain modes of dance are inappropriate, unsuited for immature audiences and may offend the community's sense of propriety rather than foster appropriate conduct that is consistent with school board rules and state statutes."" School board documents said the rule prohibited performances that depicted ""actual or simulated sexual intercourse (normal or deviate), masturbation, excretory functions and actual lewd exhibition of genitalia."" It's clear from news coverage and school board minutes that Wilson was the driving force behind the ban. School board minutes for the July 9, 1997, meeting state that Wilson proposed the rulemaking. The motion passed unanimously. On Aug. 27, 1997, the school board voted again in favor of the proposal. But there's still a bit of exaggeration in her statement: Wilson described this as a ban ""in our community"" when it strictly related to school-related groups or performances. She told us that was a reasonable description because ""the dirty dancing ban was on school bands and majorettes in the community. We have a lot of parades -- the MLK parade, different half time shows at football games in the community. I witnessed it -- a lot of forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone."" Clearly Wilson introduced the dirty dancing ban approved by the school board in 1997 and we don't doubt that school activities now have less forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone. But her claim that the ban would apply ""in our community"" is a little misleading. Some people might think her ban applied to the entire county, not just the schools." Claim: "Frederica Wilson Says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing."

Output: Frederica Wilson says she banned dirty dancing


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: In November 2019, the Facebook page “Weird History” shared the following meme, which claimed that a four-megaton atomic bomb remained missing near Georgia — and that it might be live:Under an image of a Cold War-style bomb or missile (which was incidentally published to Wikipedia in 2008), text read:There’s been a four-megaton atomic bomb lost off the coast of Georgia since 1958 and no one really knows whether or not it’s active.The meme was shared a day ahead of the release of the fourth and final season of Man in the High Castle. A streaming and expanded adaptation of the 1962 Philip K. Dick novel of the same name, Man in the High Castle portrays an alternate history of Cold War-era America in which the Allies lost World War II.In the meme, the bomb is described as a “four-megaton atomic bomb.” Megatons are a unit of measurement used to express the force of hydrogen bombs; atomic bombs are typically quantified in kilotons:Thermonuclear bombs can be hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs. The explosive yield of atomic bombs is measured in kilotons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. The explosive power of hydrogen bombs, by contrast, is frequently expressed in megatons, each unit of which equals the explosive force of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. Hydrogen bombs of more than 50 megatons have been detonated, but the explosive power of the weapons mounted on strategic missiles usually ranges from 100 kilotons to 1.5 megatons.To their credit, “Weird History” did include a status update along with a Facebook-formatted link:A Routine Training Mission Went Incredibly Wrong And Resulted In The Loss Of A Nuclear Weapon — rnkr.co/TybeeIslandThat link pointed to an entry on the listicle-heavy site Ranker, with a title similar to the text of the meme: “The US Air Force Lost A Nuclear Bomb Off The Coast Of Georgia In 1958 — And They Still Haven’t Found It.” It claimed:At around 1 am on February 5, 1958, Major Howard Richardson was piloting a B-47 Stratojet back to Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. The Major was cruising along at 38,000 feet following what he thought was a successful top-secret training mission – a simulated bombing in Virginia. Then, the situation went underwater – in every sense of the word.Unbeknownst to Richardson, the simulation was to feature one more pretend attack — from an F-86 Sabre jet fighter piloted by Lieutenant Clarence Stewart. That’s when disaster struck. […]The device is believed to have landed somewhere near Tybee Island – and the incident has since come to be known as the Tybee Island mid-air collision.One source cited by Ranker was a 2009 BBC article about the collision and its aftermath:More than 50 years after a 7,600lb (3,500kg) nuclear bomb was dropped in US waters following a mid-air military collision, the question of whether the missing weapon still poses a threat remains. […]Shortly after midnight on 5 February 1958, Howard Richardson was on a top-secret training flight for the US Strategic Air Command. It was the height of the Cold War and the young Major Richardson’s mission was to practise long-distance flights in his B-47 bomber in case he was ordered to fly from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida to any one of the targets the US had identified in Russia.Colonel Howard Richardson We thought maybe it was something from outer space, but it could only be another plane Colonel Howard Richardson The training was to be as realistic as possible, so on board was a single massive H-bomb – the nuclear weapon he might one day be instructed to drop to start World War III.As he cruised at 38,000 feet over North Carolina and Georgia, his plane was hit by another military aircraft, gouging a huge hole in the wing and knocking an engine almost off its mountings, leaving it hanging at a perilous angle … Colonel Richardson told me that the decision was instantaneous – and he still has no doubt it was the right thing to do.They would ditch their nuclear payload as soon as possible in order to lighten the aircraft for an emergency landing and also to eliminate the danger of an enormous explosion when they made their unsteady arrival at the nearest available runway.A May 2004 CBS article described the lost munition as an “H-bomb,” reporting on the area in which nuclear weapons enthusiast Derek Duke believed it sat in the waters off Savannah. Duke’s decades-dormant interest in the story was reinvigorated by internet chatter in the late 1990s, and he went looking with Geiger counters and a boat:There seems to be nothing special out here. But beneath the ocean floor off Savannah, an aluminum cylinder lies entombed in silt. It’s like an 11-foot-long bullet with a snub nose and four stubby fins. Written on it, its name: “No. 47782.” Enclosed in its metal skin: 400 pounds of conventional explosives and a quantity of bomb-grade uranium.No. 47782 is an H-bomb.A Mark 15, Mod 0 to be exact, one of the earliest thermonuclear devices developed by the United States. This is the kind whose mushroom clouds boiled in South Pacific tests. It was designed to be 100 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.No. 47782 has rested off Savannah since Feb. 5, 1958.In some pieces the missing weapon was described as an atomic bomb or A-bomb, and in others, a hydrogen bomb or H-bomb. The explosive in question was the “first relatively light (3450 kg) thermonuclear bomb,” a Mark 15, in service from 1955 to 1965.CBS went on to describe conflicting information on whether the device posed a threat in its purported “watery grave”:Four months after Richardson’s [1958] accident, the Atomic Energy Commission changed [a] policy, banning the use of nuclear bombs during training exercises.As Duke was learning all of this, he turned up a copy of the Atomic Energy Commission receipt Richardson had signed. Written in ink near the top of the document was the word “simulated.” That, according to the Air Force, meant the bomb, containing 400 pounds of conventional explosives and an undisclosed amount of uranium, did not have a detonation capsule. Without it, there was no risk of a nuclear explosion.That was reassuring. And it might have been the end of the story if not for another document Duke soon acquired.This one was a letter, written in 1966 to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, recounting the testimony of Assistant Defense Secretary Jack Howard before a 1966 congressional committee investigating the country’s missing and lost nuclear weapons.Howard, the letter says, testified there were four complete nuclear weapons, including detonation capsules, that were missing or lost. Among them: the bomb Richardson had dropped off the coast of Georgia.Reporters also contacted Richardson, the pilot, who maintained the sunken bomb was not active, and that if it was he would have known. In October 2004, the New York Times reported that the United States military began its first search for the missing bomb, but maintained it was “incapable” of detonation:It is the first time the military has sought signs of the 7,600-pound hydrogen bomb in the murky waters of Wassaw Sound since a crippled B-47 bomber dumped the Mark-15 bomb into the sea near Savannah in 1958.A team of 20 experts in nuclear weapons, gamma spectroscopy and underwater salvage confined their search to an area roughly the size of a football field, marked by buoys floating on the surface … The Air Force says the bomb is incapable of a nuclear explosion because it lacks the plutonium capsule needed to trigger one. Still, it contains about 400 pounds of conventional explosives and an undisclosed amount of uranium.The bomb was dropped into Wassaw Sound in February 1958 during a training flight when the bomber carrying it collided with a fighter jet.Four years later, a February 2009 NPR piece about the mystery of the missing nuke off Tybee Island began with the following clarification:Clarification: In the broadcast version of this report, NPR said that there was general agreement that the lost Savannah nuclear bomb contains significant quantities of uranium and plutonium. A 1966 Congressional document indicates that the bomb was a complete weapon containing both uranium and plutonium. But the Air Force and the former pilot of the plane, retired Col. Howard Richardson, deny the bomb contains plutonium.NPR reported that the Navy initially spent two months looking for the weapon, finally deciding that leaving it in its place was a better course of action than a recovery attempt:The Navy searched for the bomb for more than two months, but never found it, and today recommends it should remain in its resting place. In a 2001 report on the search and recovery of the bomb, the Air Force said that if the bomb is still intact, the risk associated with the spread of heavy metals is low. If [it is] left undisturbed, the explosive in the bomb poses no hazard, the report said. It went on to say that an “intact explosive would pose a serious explosion hazard to personnel and the environment if disturbed by a recovery attempt.”The original meme claimed that a “four-megaton atomic bomb” was “lost off the coast of Georgia” in 1958, and that “no one really knows whether or not it’s active.” On February 5 1958, an F-86 collided with the B-47 carrying a Mark 15 thermonuclear weapon, causing an emergency landing — during which the bomb was jettisoned, landing in the waters near Tybee Island, Georgia.Initial Naval searches for it were unsuccessful, and the missing nuke remained a subject of interest for more than half a decade; as the meme indicated, some dispute still surrounds its level of risk. Documents from the Cold War regarding whether the sunken munition contained both uranium and plutonium and whether it could be detonated contain conflicting information. Claim: Since 1958, a four-megaton atomic bomb has been missing off the coast of Georgia, and we don't know if it's active.

Output: A Four-Megaton Atomic Bomb Was Lost off Georgia’s Coast in 1958 (And No One Knows If It’s Active)


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements


Output: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higher levels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then segued immediately into an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates “are not supported by the available evidence.” The key problem, as the story points out, is that these claims are based almost exclusively on observational studies that can’t prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven’t accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay the possibility that higher doses of vitamin D and calcium might cause harm–a stance which the story notes may not be justified. We applaud this story’s effort to show readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D is the latest in a long line of “miracle” nutrients that people have turned to in the hope of improving their health. As we’ve learned from copious previous experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised and can sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn’t necessarily better when it comes to vitamin D–or most other health care interventions for that matter.