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: Xuzhou, around 400 miles (640 kilometers) from Beijing, is implementing an “orange alert” pollution control program aimed at “ensuring air quality during the National Day period”, according to a notice reviewed by Reuters and authenticated by industry sources. China’s environment ministry warned on Monday that “unfavorable” weather conditions would lead to a prolonged and widespread outbreak of smog stretching along the eastern coast for around two weeks, and urged local governments throughout affected regions to take swift action. The smog has already forced Beijing and surrounding cities to implement special restrictions on heavy industries, including steel, power and cement, in order to ensure skies remain clear during the Chinese capital’s 70th anniversary parade on Oct. 1. Beijing’s environment bureau said on Wednesday that it had also issued an orange alert, the second highest in a four-tier pollution alarm system, lasting from Thursday until further notice. It will curtail production and restrict traffic. Xuzhou, home to more than a dozen steel firms, started restricting steel output on Wednesday, and will close down all production from Thursday evening. Coking coal producers will also be subject to controls. Restrictions will be placed on freight vehicle deliveries in major industries and on straw burning in rural districts. The city will also work to source its electricity from cleaner and efficient sources over the next few days. In smog-prone Anyang, another major steel producing city in central China’s Henan province, authorities have implemented “red alert” pollution control measures that started on Wednesday, imposing tougher restrictions on industry and transportation. According to a government notice circulated by traders and the local media, Anyang ordered small, independent sintering plants to close on Wednesday, and will shut down all steel production from Thursday evening. Anyang was one of China’s most polluted cities last winter, with concentrations of PM2.5 up 27% over the period. It is located near the Taihang mountain range, which the environment ministry said is currently trapping emissions and channeling them towards Beijing. Claim: China extends pollution curbs ahead of National Day celebrations.
[A]: The heavy industrial city of Xuzhou in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu will shut local factories on Thursday as part of efforts to reduce smog ahead of the country’s National Day celebrations next week, the local government said.


[Q]: Paragraph: The story notes the an additional $20 per mammogram with CAD when billed to Medicare. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). The story provides data that there was little positive difference between radiologists' and CAD detection of cancer via mammogram images. However, the story does not mention results of any other evaluations of the technology (e.g. how it has been used in UK and other countries where results did show benefit in terms of increased detection of cancer). The story mentions that the newer technology may result in over treatment as there are more false positives with the CAD technology vs. radiologists' analysis alone. In a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was 20% increase in biopsy rates after mammographers used the CAD software. The article does not present the study well. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially the centers that used CAD. The story presented some key results but virtually nothing about the study design. The story does not engage in disease mongering or suggest that women should opt for mammograms at centers that have the new CAD technology. The story provides many clinical perspectives on the CAD technology. The reporter interviews not only the study author and the author of an accompanying NEJM editorial, but also clinicians and radiologists who talk about use of CAD in practice. Interviews with clinicians who provide their rationale for not using the CAD technology provide excellent balance to the story. The story discusses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. The story mentions that about 30% of mammography centers use computer-aided detection (CAD) technology. The story mentions that CAD is a newer method of reading mammographies, but in a recent observational trial it was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. The story does not rely solely on a press release for information, and there is independent reporting and sources cited not affiliated with the recently published data on CAD. Claim: Doubts on mammogram software
[A]: This story provides readers with a balanced discussion of the potential downside of incorporating newer technologies into routine practice too soon. Specifically, the story reports evidence recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine that computer-aided detection (CAD), a newer method of reading mammographies, was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. There was 20% increase in biopsies after mammographers used the CAD software, and many of these women had non-malignant lesions. The article did not adequately describe the study. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially in the centers that used CAD. The story reported on key results, but without adequately explaining how they were arrived at. The story provides multiple perspectives on the CAD technology in breast cancer detection. The reporter interviews not only the lead author of the NEJM study, but also the author of an accompanying editorial on this newer technology, as well as radiologists who talk about CAD in their practice. Interviews with clinicians who offer a rationale for not using the CAD technology give excellent balance to the story and provide an often overlooked perspective: newer and more high-tech devices are not necessarily better. The story notes the additional $20 per mammogram cost to Medicare with CAD. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would likely increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). Importantly, the story discuses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. More screening centers with the CAD technology are available; however, the new technology may not serve women any better. Traditional mammography with a radiologist interpreting the results may be more accurate and result in fewer unnecessary tests and biopsies.


[Q]: Paragraph: In a filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dated Friday, Bayer said the verdict defied regulatory findings and sound science, adding that the “speculative case” should  never have made it before a jury. Bayer in a statement said it stood behind the safety of Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate and planned to vigorously defend the more than 42,700 U.S. Roundup cancer lawsuits it faces. In its court filing, Bayer said the Hardeman appeal had the potential to shape how every subsequent Roundup case is  litigated. The widely-used weed killer is made by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired last year for $63 billion. Bayer stock has lost about 23% in value since the first Roundup verdict for plaintiffs in August 2018. The case on appeal before the 9th Circuit involved the claims of Edwin Hardeman, which was the third Roundup case to go to trial in a U.S. court. A jury in March ordered Monsanto to pay $80 million in damages, saying Roundup had caused the man’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The trial court judge in July reduced that verdict to $25 million. Lawyers for Hardeman on Monday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Bayer’s appeal. The lawyers during the trial argued Monsanto had failed to warn consumers of Roundup’s cancer risk and said the company concealed damaging evidence from public and regulatory view. Bayer rejects those allegations. The German company’s main appeal argument in Hardeman’s case centers on repeated findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that glyphosate is not a carcinogen and not a risk to public health when used in accordance with its current label. Bayer argued it would be impossible to comply with the Hardeman verdict, a lawsuit brought under state law, because any warning label would be in conflict with guidance from a federal agency. Some legal experts consider this preemption defense a “silver bullet” because it would stop claims across the board, but said the argument faced big hurdles on appeal. The company also said the trial judge had committed “a host of errors” by allowing jurors to hear unreliable expert testimony. Claim: Bayer asks U.S. appeals court to reverse $25 million Roundup verdict.
[A]:
Bayer AG on Monday said it has asked a U.S. federal appeals court to throw out a $25 million judgment it was ordered to pay to a California man who blamed the company’s Roundup weed killer for his cancer.