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.

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: 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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: He’s not sure when the second-year starter will be healthy enough to be cleared to play. Allen was placed in the NFL’s concussion protocol after taking a helmet-to-helmet hit by Patriots defensive back Jonathan Jones in the opening minute of the fourth quarter of a 16-10 loss to New England on Sunday. Putting aside the three interceptions Allen threw, McDermott’s biggest question was why Jones wasn’t ejected. “There’s no room in football for that,” McDermott said. “I thought he should have been thrown out. But other than that, I’m not going to get into that. That’s for the league to get into.” The hit occurred when Allen scrambled out of the pocket and burst through a hole up the middle while facing third-and-8 at the New England 45. He gained 7 yards before Jones closed in on him, lowered his helmet and struck the quarterback in the crown of his helmet. Jones was flagged for a personal foul for unnecessary roughness. Allen lay on the field for several minutes before hopping up on his own. He was briefly evaluated on the sideline before being escorted up the tunnel. Allen was spotted in the locker room chatting with teammates following the game. NFL officiating chief Al Riveron told a pool reporter the decision to not eject Jones came because the hit did not rise to the level of the league standard for disqualification. “There was a foul called and obviously the penalty stood, but we did not feel this contact rose to that level,” Riveron said, who also noted Jones was turning his head just before hitting Allen. Bills safety Micah Hyde questioned the official’s judgment saying he or any of his teammates would have been ejected for a similar hit on New England’s Tom Brady. “That’s our quarterback. We ride or die with him,” Hyde said. “To see that happen, Josh didn’t slide, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if you’re a running back, you can’t head to the head.” Jones defended the hit saying it was never his intent to hurt Allen. “No malice or intent. Just a part of football,” Jones said. “We’re just running around playing football. I hope he’s OK. I’m going to check on him.” Allen finished going 13 of 28 for 153 yards, and scored on a 1-yard touchdown dive. Allen’s uncertain status leaves Buffalo with veteran backup Matt Barkley the only quarterback on the active roster in preparing to play at Tennessee next weekend. Buffalo then enters its bye week. The loss prevented Buffalo (3-1) from getting off to its first 4-0 start since 2008. Though the Bills defense held Brady in check, their offense was busy coughing up the ball at critical moments for the third time in four games. Allen threw three interceptions, two of which translated into a touchdown and a field goal. Punter Corey Bojorquez also had a punt blocked by J.C. Jackson, which led to Matthew Slater returning it 11 yards for a touchdown to put the Patriots up 13-0 in the first quarter. McDermott was unhappy with Allen’s continuing string of committing turnovers. He’s now thrown six interceptions and lost two fumbles in four starts this season. “He’s a young quarterback and sometimes they have to learn those lessons. Those are hard lessons and we have to continue to coach it up,” McDermott said. The game was decided on Buffalo’s fourth turnover with 1:27 left. Facing third-and-9 on the New England 39, Barkley was pressured by linebacker Kyle Van Noy, who got his hand on the quarterback’s chest. That forced Barkley to throw the ball up into the air, and have it easily picked off by Jamie Collins. The loss spoiled a stout effort by a Bills defense which limited the Patriots to just 11 first downs and 224 yards. Brady finished 18 of 39 for 150 yards and an interception. He was picked off by Hyde in the end zone on third-and-goal from the 2 in the second quarter. Brady’s 45.9 passer rating was the sixth lowest of his career and lowest since finishing with a 34 rating in a 27-20 loss to Indianapolis on Nov. 5, 2006. Barkley lamented how the Bills let the Patriots off the hook. “Especially with the way our defense played and where we had the ball at the end of the game, it’s tough,” Barkley said. “This is a tough one.” ___ More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL Claim: Bills fall to Pats, and lose QB Josh Allen to head injury.
[EX A]: Bills coach Sean McDermott suddenly has bigger worries than Josh Allen’s carelessness with the football.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The analysis suggests the potentially harmful effect of Celebrex dosage is most pronounced in higher-risk patients, researchers said at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting. “Patients at low cardiovascular risk should take some level of comfort,” said Dr. Scott Solomon, lead researcher of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored analysis. “That wasn’t so clear previously.”   Doctors should exercise caution in prescribing the drug, generally known as celecoxib, in high-risk patients, said Solomon, whose analysis was also published online in the journal Circulation. Celebrex belongs to a class of pain drugs known as cox-2 inhibitors and is the only such drug still on the market in the United States. Merck and Co Inc withdrew its widely used cox-2 drug, Vioxx, from the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long- term users. Another cox-2 inhibitor from Pfizer called Bextra was also pulled from the U.S. market due to safety concerns. While the analysis sheds light on how the drug should be used, Solomon said he could not judge whether the data lift the cloud over this class of drugs. The six trials involving a total of 7,950 patients all studied Celebrex against a placebo for uses other than arthritis. Patients received either 400 milligrams once a day, 200 mg twice a day, or 400 mg twice a day. The primary goal of the pooled analysis was an assessment of the combined risk of cardiovascular death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure or events involving blood clots. Researchers found the heart risk was lowest at the 400 mg daily dose. They found nearly a two-fold risk of adverse heart events with the 200 mg twice daily dose and that jumped to about a three-fold risk at the 400 mg twice daily dose. “Even 400 mg once a day showed elevated risk” in the high-risk population, Solomon said, adding he could not extrapolate whether doses lower than 400 mg cut risk further. The increased risk was not affected by aspirin use, researchers said. “Most of the data used in this pooled analysis have previously been published and are consistent with what we already know about the cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and other prescription arthritis pain relievers,” said Gail Cawkwell, Pfizer’s executive medical director. “The analysis doesn’t provide any new conclusions on the FDA-approved doses of Celebrex, including the most commonly prescribed dose of 200 mg daily,” she said. Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who has a study on lower doses underway, added: “There aren’t long-term randomized placebo-controlled trials for that dose, The only way we’re ever going to answer these questions is with good randomized prospective data,” he said. “We’ll tell it like it is when the data is in.” Claim: Celebrex risky in high-risk patients, study finds.
[EX A]:
Doctors should prescribe the lowest doses of Celebrex possible in patients at high risk of heart problems, researchers who did a combined analysis of six studies of the Pfizer Inc pain drug said on Monday.