Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Input: Consider Input: Even before a show based on the Chernobyl disaster renewed interest both on and off social media, one of the most vivid online reminders of the April 1986 nuclear reactor meltdown continued to circulate online.A Facebook post that was shared more than 36,000 times on the platform in December 2019 contains a photograph of shows one of the remnants of the meltdown alongside a short description:The photo above is the closest humanity has ever come to creating Medusa. If you were to look at this, you would die instantly.The image is of a reactor core lava formation in the basement of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. It’s called the Elephant’s Foot and weighs hundreds of tons, but is only a couple meters across.Oh, and regarding the Medusa thing, this picture was taken through a mirror around the corner of the hallway. Because the wheeled camera they sent up to take pictures of it was destroyed by the radiation. The Elephant’s Foot is almost as if it is a living creature.The post is a reprinting of a 2012 Tumblr post about the Elephant’s Foot, one that is accurate about the origin of the photograph and not far off from the truth about the consequences of being in the presence of the toxic mix of uranium, silicon dioxide, and other materials — which is still active. Dozens of workers died during the explosion and subsequent cleanup efforts due to acute radiation syndrome.As the science magazine Nautilus reported in 2013:After just 30 seconds of exposure, dizziness and fatigue will find you a week later. Two minutes of exposure and your cells will soon begin to hemorrhage; four minutes: vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. 300 seconds and you have two days to live.Other images of the Elephant’s Foot have also gained notoriety. They are believed to have been taken 10 years after the fatal meltdown by a man identified as Artur Korneyev:In 2014, Korneyev was interviewed by the New York Times for a story on the construction of a $1.5 billion structure that would cap airborne emissions from escaping the site of the former reactor:Artur Korneyev, 65, a radiation specialist, at his home in Slavutich. After the accident, his job was to locate radioactive fuel on site and determine radiation levels to limit the exposure of other workers.These days Mr. Korneyev works in the project management unit, but because of his health — he has cataracts and other problems related to his heavy radiation exposure during his first three years — he is no longer allowed inside the plant. “Soviet radiation,” he joked, “is the best radiation in the world.”The site of the reactor and the neighboring town of Pripyat were made open for tours by the public in 2011. In 2019 the pop culture site Consequence of Sound reported that the success of the HBO show Chernobyl, a dramatization of the fatal disaster, led to a 35 percent increase in tour bookings compared to 2018. But one of the side-effects of that increased attention was an influx of visits from social media “influencers,” who would post “sexy” photographs of themselves in the area.“If you visit, please remember that a terrible tragedy occurred there,” series creator Craig Mazin posted in response. “Comport yourselves with respect for all who suffered and sacrificed.”

Output: "A photograph spreading online shows the ""Elephant's Foot"" lava flow at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster."


Input: Consider Input: The question of cost is cited in the final line of the story, which suggests that the scoring system can “address escalating health care cost issues.” But we didn’t think that was specific enough to warrant a Satisfactory score. The story doesn’t clue readers in to the fact that the financial burden can be measured in billions of dollars — a single screening test recommended for millions of Americans can cost thousands of dollars apiece. The other cost issue specific to this test is that it takes valuable time for providers to retrieve a reputable risk calculator when sitting with a patient and enter in the specific data points, including in this case waist circumference, which clinicians often do not measure as a ‘vital sign’ per se. The story cites a study that credits colonoscopy with reducing the risk of death from colon cancer by about 50 percent, by removing polyps. It would have been helpful for the story to explain what that relative reduction in risk means in absolute terms (e.g. did the rate of cancer death go from 50% to 25% or from 2% to around 1%?) The story also notes that the study found that patients with a low to intermediate risk score “still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” We’ll give credit here for the story’s provision of these key statistics, which do give a sense as how well the test accurately identifies truly low-risk individuals. However, we’d note that the benefit here should ideally refer to the ability of the algorithm to classify people at all risk levels (including high-risk), and therefore target the highest-risk patients for colonoscopy. The story doesn’t really get into discussion of the predictive power of the test, referred to as a likelihood ratio, which is in the study manuscript. However, this is a difficult concept for most health care providers and patients, and we think it’s understandable that the story did not include a full discussion of this topic. The harm of a screening test such as this really is “getting it wrong” in terms of predicting someone to be at low risk and finding them to have a higher risk polyp or malignancy. As noted above, the story cautions that “low- to intermediate-risk patients still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” This story accurately explains that the research was about predictive modeling, and explains the components of the risk score as well as the study design. There are some cautionary notes in the text, including a statement from outside expert that “the data from this study is not strong enough to spur any changes in current screening recommendations,” an opinion shared by an editorialist on the study. We think this is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story does not hype the incidence or seriousness of the disease. The prevalence statistics cited are consistent with these National Cancer Institute figures. The story contains two independent voices. The perspective they provide is a particular strength of the article. We wish that more stories would reach out to experts not affiliated with the studies being reported on for context. The story notes that a variety of screening tests exist, but the relevant alternative here is actually other risk calculators, which the authors of the study describe and cite but are not routinely used. The story doesn’t mention these other calculators and why they are seldom used — context that would have deepened reader understanding of the issue. Although availability isn’t explicitly addressed, this risk calculator is now available (implicitly) by virtue of publication of the paper. It is a simple scoring system that can be implemented based on the information in the paper, and the story makes this clear. We’ll rate this Satisfactory. The story makes it sound as if this is a first-of-its-kind tool. However, risk calculation tools for colon cancer have been in circulation for many years. We could not find a news release related to this study. But in any case, the comments from two independent experts assure us that the story wasn’t based on a news release.

Output: 'Scoring System' May Spot Those in Greatest Need of Colonoscopy; But one expert cautions that even 'low risk' patients can still develop suspicious polyps


Input: Consider Input: State health officials said Tuesday in a news release that the Aedes aegypti mosquito was recently found in southeastern Nebraska’s York County. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services says it’s the first time that type of mosquito has been found in Nebraska. Health officials say the Aedes aegypti bites primarily in the daytime, only feeds on people, and can only fly about 500 feet. Besides Zika, it’s been known to spread yellow fever, chikungunya and dengue. State epidemiologist Dr. Tom Safranek says the spread of such diseases would require an infected person to be bitten by the mosquito that would then have to bite an uninfected person, making the risk of such infections in Nebraska low.


Output: Mosquito breed known to carry Zika found in Nebraska.