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: The Paris regional administration suspended the job of removing hazardous substances from the fire-ravaged Paris cathedral last month under pressure from labor inspectors concerned about health risks for workers. The administration had said that when the lead-removal work resumed, stricter safety procedures, new equipment and allowing much fewer workers inside at a time would “prevent any release of polluting elements to the outside.” But representatives from environmental groups and the CGT union said at a news conference Monday they don’t think the government safeguards go far enough. They asked for a regularly updated chart showing the level of lead in the air. Labor and environmental groups are also pushing for the creation of a medical center to monitor of firefighters, workers and residents. Paris Deputy Mayor Anne Souyris said updated measurements of lead levels are set for release on Tuesday. The decontamination work is scheduled to resume Wednesday, starting with the square in front of Notre Dame and adjacent streets, Souyris said. Hundreds of tons of lead that was in Notre Dame’s spire and roof melted during the April 15 fire, which came close to destroying the cathedral. Lead levels remain elevated at some spots inside and in the soil of the adjacent park and forecourt, according to the Paris regional health agency. Those areas have been closed to the public since the fire. The environmental activists and union officials said they want a containment shield built over Notre Dame to keep more lead from being released into the atmosphere. “For the efficiency of the decontamination measures within the area, it is absolutely necessary that the site is confined”, Annie Thebaud-Mony, co-founder of health and environment group Henri Pezerat, said. Notre Dame rector Patrick Chauvet acknowledged that lead can escape into the environment from a big hole in the cathedral’s roof but ruled out building a containment shield before the decontamination work resumes. Paris authorities ordered new checks of schools and day care centers in the Notre Dame neighborhood and recommended blood tests for children under age 7 and pregnant women who live nearby. Children are especially vulnerable to health problems from lead poisoning and exposure. Claim: France: Groups want Notre Dame enclosed during lead cleanup.
[A]: Environmental groups and one of France’s largest labor unions called Monday for a containment shield and other safety measures to ensure decontamination work at Notre Dame Cathedral does not expose workers and residents to unsafe levels of lead.


[Q]: Paragraph: Depression is one of the most common forms of mental illness, affecting more than 350 million people worldwide. It is ranked by the World Health Organization as the leading cause of disability globally. Treatment usually involves either medication, some form of  psychotherapy or a combination of both. Yet many patients fail to get better and suffer recurring bouts of illness. MBCT was developed to help such people by teaching them skills to recognize and respond constructively to thoughts and feelings associated with relapse, aiming to prevent a downward spiral into depression. In the first large study to compare MBCT and anti-depressants, researchers found little difference in outcomes. In terms of cost, mindfulness training — often viewed as more costly because it requires more time with a trained therapist — was not significantly more pricey, particularly when given in group sessions, the study found. Richard Byng, a professor at Britain’s Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, said that, while current standard treatment for chronic depression is to keep taking anti-depressants, many people don’t want to take them for long periods and others want to avoid side-effects. In this study, 424 adults with recurrent major depression who were on maintenance anti-depressant drugs were randomly assigned either to come off their anti-depressants slowly and receive MBCT or to stay on their medication. While 212 patients continued taking their anti-depressants, the other 212 attended eight group mindfulness therapy sessions and were given daily home practice as well as an option to have four follow-up sessions over a 12-month period. Study results published in The Lancet medical journal showed that after two years, relapse rates were similar in both groups — at 44 percent in the therapy group versus 47 percent in the anti-depressant drug group. “Whilst this study doesn’t show that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy works any better than maintenance anti-depressant medication in reducing the rate of relapse ... these results suggest a new choice for the millions of people with recurrent depression on repeat prescriptions,” said Willem Kuyken of Oxford University, who worked with Byng on the research. Claim: Mindfulness therapy as good as medication for chronic depression - study.
[A]: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) may be just as effective as anti-depressants in helping prevent people with chronic depression from relapsing, scientists said on Tuesday.


[Q]: Paragraph: The story addresses cost in multiple places. One dentist notes that using SDF “comes out to pennies per tooth.” Elsewhere, the story refers to the overall treatment as costing $25 — and notes that getting a cavity filled at the same dentist’s office costs $151. We were glad to see the cost of a traditional filling included, since it gives readers useful context. The story also notes that Oregon is, so far, the only state to reimburse Medicaid providers for treating cavities with SDF. One factor not noted is that some cavities may need to be repeatedly treated, raising the cost. In many ways, the story does a very nice job of explaining the benefits of SDF. It addresses cost, the ability to avoid anesthesia, and the ease with which it can be applied. It even discusses the limits of those benefits, noting that patients with mouth sores or a silver allergy can’t use SDF — and that patients with “severe” cavities still need fillings. The story also includes links to supporting materials, which we like to see. However, this criterion is very specifically focused on whether a story quantifies benefits, and this story does not do that–we’re given little information on the status of the medical evidence for this procedure overall. A 2009 paper, linked to from this story, looked at two clinical trials of SDF and found that it “arrested” at least 96.1 percent of cavities (i.e., prevented them from getting worse). If the story had noted that, it would have gotten an enthusiastic thumbs up here. The story clearly discusses what is, by far, the most common side effect of SDF treatment — which is that the area of the tooth affected by the cavity becomes darkened after treatment. There are, however, other potential harms. A 2016 paper noted that 3 out of 1,493 patients in studies they reviewed developed “a small, mildly painful white lesion in the mucosa,” which disappeared after 48 hours. However, that’s such a small effect size, that it’s not clear whether the lesions were caused by SDF, so we don’t fault this story for not mentioning it. There can be more significant adverse health effects if SDF is inhaled or swallowed — including respiratory problems, vomiting and diarrhea. But those effects are only relevant if SDF is not handled properly, so, again, we don’t fault the story for not mentioning it. The story includes links to supporting material — which is great — but offers little discussion of the quality of evidence in the text of the story itself. For people who are reading this story in the printed newspaper, for example, this means that there is no immediate way to determine what evidence there is for the claims being made in the story. From what we can tell, there are very few solid trials on this intervention, and think this should have been discussed in the story. No disease mongering here. This is a real strong point. The story draws on input from a variety of experts, and clearly marks their relevant affiliations. What’s missing, though, is commentary from an expert on the research behind the method. The story is effectively a comparison between the use of SDF and the use of drilling and filling to treat cavities. The story does not address the use of laser technology, in lieu of drilling, but that technique still requires the use of fillings — and would still require the patient to be still during potentially lengthy treatment (which is one reason for the use of general anesthesia in young patients). Alternatives of using nitrous oxide in the office or procedural sedation with the proper safeguards were not discussed, either. The story makes clear that the use of SDF is not widespread in the U.S., but that it is becoming increasingly available. The story makes clear that SDF is not new, focusing instead on the fact that it is increasing in popularity (and why). The story doesn’t appear to be based on a news release. And even if it were, its use of independent sources goes well beyond what would have appeared in any news release. Claim: A Cavity-Fighting Liquid Lets Kids Avoid Dentists’ Drills
[A]:
The story focuses on the use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) to treat and prevent dental cavities, particularly in children. The story does a good job of addressing cost, discussing benefits in context, and drawing on input from a variety of independent sources. But the article seems to be somewhat one sided, praising the therapy much more strongly than discussing the downsides of the treatment or the potential need for ongoing repeat treatment. And it sidesteps a solid discussion of what the medical evidence says about SDF. As well, we found this headline problematic. “A cavity-fighting liquid lets kids avoid dentists’ drills.” Yes, SDF could help many kids avoid dentists’ drills for some cavities– but, due to lack of availability, a lot of kids won’t be able to use SDF, and even kids who can use SDF won’t be able to use it if they have particularly large cavities. “A cavity-fighting liquid lets some kids avoid dentists’ drills” would have been more accurate and informative. According to the CDC, cavities are extremely common in young children: 19.5 percent of children aged 2-5, and 20 percent of children aged 5-11, have cavities. SDF offers a relatively faster, less painful, low-cost alternative to the traditional “drilling and filling” treatment of cavities. There has also been news coverage of an increase in the use of general anesthesia on young children in order to treat cavities, though we were unable to find any research on the subject. If SDF can be used to address cavities, allowing children to avoid treatment that requires general anesthesia — and related risks — that’s certainly worth covering. As with medical stories, it’s vital that dental stories like these take a look at the research/evidence for a particular intervention and discuss it with readers, which this one didn’t.