Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[Q]: Paragraph: The massive (8.9) Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan in March 2011 resulted in a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and releases of radioactive materials from the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear disaster since the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine in April 1986. In August 2013, news accounts quoted an official from Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority as stating that highly radioactive water was seeping from the plant into the Pacific Ocean and creating an “emergency” situation that the plant’s operators were not adequately containing: Highly radioactive water seeping into the ocean from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is creating an “emergency” that the operator is struggling to contain, an official from the country’s nuclear watchdog said on Monday. This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, [said]. Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) are only a temporary solution, he said. Tepco’s “sense of crisis is weak,” Kinjo said. “This is why you can’t just leave it up to Tepco alone” to grapple with the ongoing disaster. “Right now, we have an emergency,” he said. References to these news accounts were widely circulated on the Internet accompanied by a color graphic supposedly showing the flow of radioactive discharge from Fukushima all the way across the Pacific Ocean to the western coasts of North and South America and down to Antarctica:  However, that chart did not actually track or measure radioactive discharge emanating from Fukushima in 2013, or any other aspect of the Fukushima disaster. It was a plot created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) immediately after the Tohoku earthquake in March 2011 showing the wave height of the tsunami that followed. It had (and has) nothing to do with the flow or spread of radioactive seepage from Fukushima. As for whether the current Fukushima “emergency” poses a danger to residents of the U.S., American officials have stated that the diluting effects of the vast Pacific Ocean expanse would likely neutralize any deleterious effects from the radioactive seepage by the time it reached U.S. shores: In the United States, across the Pacific, there was no sense of alarm. “With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here,” said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Eric Norman, a nuclear engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the latest leak was not a concern. “The Pacific Ocean is an enormous place,” said Norman, who found radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power in California rainwater, milk and plants soon after the earthquake and tsunami. “There’s a lot of material between us and Japan. No matter what happens in Fukushima, it’s not going to be a problem over here.” Likewise, the Hawaii State Department of Health has been monitoring Japanese water quality surveys and anticipates no public health effect in that state due to leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) continues to monitor the results of water quality surveys [from Japan] and does not anticipate any public health effect on beachgoers or seafood safety around the Hawaiian Islands, due to the following factors: • Water acts as a diluent. While there may be significant quantities of radioactive material released into the sea near the Fukushima reactor site, the massive amount of water in the Pacific Ocean would rapidly dilute and disperse the materials to negligible levels. • Some radioactive isotopes rapidly decay. For example, the half life of Iodine-131 (I-131) is about eight days. This means that the activity level of the I-131 isotope drops by half every eight days. Given the length of time since the event, the short-lived radionuclides would have decayed to near background levels and therefore pose no health hazard. Although Cesium isotopes have longer half-lives (Cs-134 has a half-life of about two years, Cs-137 a longer half-life of about 30 years), the radionuclides also undergo biological excretion and do not continue to build up in fish forever. (Similar “false image” fears were spurred by the Internet circulation of a nuclear fallout map back in March 2011.) In December 2013, alarmist reports were spread on the Internet with headlines such as “TEPCO Quietly Admits Reactor 3 Could Be Melting Down Now!” and “Persons residing on the west coast of North America should IMMEDIATELY begin preparing for another possible onslaught of dangerous atmospheric radiation!” Such claims were exaggerations based on much less sensational reports (similar to ones issued several months earlier) which simply stated that the plant’s operators, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), had recently observed steam issuing from one of the damaged Fukushima reactor buildings but had “not identified [any] abnormal plant conditions.” As noted at the Fukushima Diary blog: Since the end of 2013, a hoax has been going around on the Internet saying that Reactor #3 is experiencing a meltdown. (In fact, it had already melted down some time earlier.) From my observation, this mess started with an article on Enenews saying that Reactor #3 had been observed still steaming multiple times in December, which is correct. However, “steam” has been observed issuing from that reactor beginning in July 2013, and since then it has been observed almost every day. From the frequency of the “steam,” I assume it is evaporated coolant water leaking out of primary containment vessel, and we’re seeing it now because TEPCO has removed the major debris from the top of the reactor. Probably the steam has been coming up since just after [the earthquake of] March 2011. Sure it’s extremely radioactive, nobody can stand on the top of reactor #3, and it’s harmful for the west coast. However, it’s been that way for 3 years now. Claim: Image shows radioactive seepage spreading across the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: The story does discuss costs, but the framing is problematic. The story, based on a conversation with one source, the study’s lead investigator, says, “It’s difficult at this point to predict costs. However, he expects costs will not approach those for Provenge, the pricey treatment vaccine for prostate cancer approved by the FDA in 2010. Provenge costs $93,000 for the one-month, three-dose treatment. Medicare covers it.” This tells readers that, no matter what the drug costs, Medicare likely will cover it. We appreciate the effort to bring cost information into the story, but this type of information is misleading. The story does explain that only one patient remains cancer free following the study. It then details how for most of the patients cancer continued to progress after 2 months. It says that the median overall survival in both the breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients was less than 16 months. But the story is framed in such a way to highlight the one potentially positive outcome of the study and to downplay the negative. We read more sooner about the one patient who may have responded well to the vaccine than we do about the 25 other patients who did not. The story mentions side effects in a satisfactory way. Technically, the story provides readers with much of the information they would need to assess the validity of the study, but it comes out in bits and pieces. For example, we only find out near the end of the story that “The woman, who remains disease-free, had a previous treatment with a different treatment vaccine. ‘That might have primed her immune system,’ Gulley speculates. She also had only one regimen of chemotherapy, perhaps keeping her immune system stronger.” This casts much doubt on the study’s design, and it would have been nice to have seen some outside expertise brought in to either discuss those design problems or to torpedo the story altogether. Again, the story deserves high marks for being very specific in the lead and throughout the story. It says, that the vaccine is “for breast and ovarian cancer that has spread to other parts of the body” in the lead and later details the particular circumstances of the study cohort. It says, “The patients had already undergone a variety of treatments but the cancer was progressing. Twenty one of the 26 had undergone three or more chemotherapy regimens.” This is the root of the story’s main shortcoming. Almost all of the information in the story comes from one source: Dr. James Gulley, who oversaw the study. Gulley is quite enthusiastic about this vaccine, despite the evidence, and the story needed more perspectives to put this vaccine into a broader context. At the very end, there are a few comments from Dr. Vincent K. Tuohy, who also is working on a breast cancer vaccine. Because of his competing research, he seems to have a conflict, but even putting that aside, his comments were not used to their best effect. There was no comparison in the story to existing alternatives. The median survival, for example, is presented without the context of how long these patients might have lived had they been undergoing standard chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We give high marks to the story for saying right in the lead that the findings are from “a preliminary study in 26 patients.” That tells readers both that the findings need to be interpreted with caution and that the treatment is not available to most people. The concept of vaccines for breast/ovarian cancer is indeed novel, and the story acknowledges that other vaccines are being studied. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Study: Vaccine for Breast, Ovarian Cancer Has Potential
[A]: 2


[Q]: Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton's near-collapse at a Sept. 11 memorial service and the subsequent revelation that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier has people wondering about the health of the two major presidential candidates. The Clinton campaign promised more medical data on her health, and Republican Donald Trump pledged to release details of a recent checkup. Both candidates have already released letters from their doctors saying they are healthy enough to be president. Clinton’s team argues that Trump has released less information about his health than Clinton. In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, Clinton said her two-page 2015 letter from her physician is consistent with what presidential candidates have released in the past. ""You know, you've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama"" when the two ran for president, Clinton said. ""Donald Trump's doctor said he'd be the healthiest president in history. That's just not even serious."" When Cooper asked what additional information she would be supplying, Clinton did not offer any details. ""Well, we're going to be releasing more information, and I think it's fair to say, we've already met the standard of disclosure of past presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and President Obama."" Actually, there is no ""standard"" for the type of medical information that should be released. The experts we consulted agreed. But Clinton's disclosures are on the same level as Obama and Romney in previous elections. ""There is no 'standard' of medical disclosure, just whatever the voting public is comfortable with,"" said Jerald Podair, professor of history at Lawrence University in Wisconsin. ""This means, of course, that as much secrecy as possible has been the historical norm."" Thus, he said, the public didn't know about Grover Cleveland's cancer, Franklin Roosevelt's paralysis or John Kennedy's Addison’s disease. ""All kept the true nature of their illnesses secret from the American public. Obviously, is is harder to do so today, but as Hillary (‘darn these allergies’) Clinton has shown, the system can still be gamed."" ""This is an imaginary standard set up by candidates,"" said Brooks Simpson, a presidential historian at Arizona State University. Interest in candidate medical records has varied over time. There was a lot of interest when John McCain ran against Obama in 2008. McCain was 71 and had a history of skin cancer. He released 1,173 pages of records going back to 2000. In contrast, medical records were not much of an issue in 2004 when George W. Bush, then 58, sought re-election against John Kerry, then 60. Both were known to be big fitness enthusiasts. Bush had received regular checkups as president but that year decided to have his physical after the election. As CNN reported at the time, ""Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry have released their full medical records, but there isn't much public pressure for either man to release more details. Americans may want a healthy commander-in-chief, but 61 percent say the president has the same rights as other citizens to keep medical records private, compared to just 38 percent in favor of releasing all information that might affect his ability to serve."" It's more of an issue today, in part, because both candidates are so old. ""These people are in the Ronald Reagan category,"" said Simpson. Trump, if elected, would be the oldest person to assume the presidency. Clinton would be the second oldest behind Reagan. ""Maybe 70 is the new 60, but these people are old,"" Simpson said. ""Neither one has really satisfied issues of disclosure in the public mind,"" although Clinton has been more forthcoming, he said. ""Trump's efforts have been pretty feeble. But the incident on Sunday and the cough just illustrated a personal attack narrative and has given traction to an accusation that her health is less than ideal. This is a way not just to raise questions about candidate health, but about candidate transparency."" When we contacted the Clinton campaign, spokesman Josh Schwerin acknowledged that there is no real standard. He said the candidate was simply referring to the examples of Obama and Romney as a relevant point of comparison. How do their medical summaries compare? Candidate Obama Romney Clinton Trump Year 2008 2012 2015 2015 Words in doctor letter 280 535 578 174 Blood pressure 90/60 130/80 100/65 110/65 Heart rate 60 40 72 Not mentioned Triglycerides 44 179 69 Not mentioned Total cholesterol 173 169 195 Not mentioned Good cholesterol 68 Not mentioned 64 Not mentioned Bad cholesterol 96 Not mentioned 118 Not mentioned Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0.6 Normal Not relevant .015 Allergies mentioned? No Yes Yes No Past health problems detailed? No Yes Yes Yes Family history mentioned? Yes Yes Yes No Because there is no standard, the doctors of different candidates included different levels of detail. The letters for all four candidates gave blood pressure. The letters for Obama, Romney and Clinton offered at least some blood test results, such as total cholesterol. Trump's does not. Family history, a key factor for predicting a person's lifespan or potential health problems, is missing from Trump's letter. The doctors for Clinton and Romney go into more detail about the candidate's past health problems, but that may be because they had some issues in the past. We don't know about Trump's history, but the detailed 2014 health report for Obama once he became president says he's had no significant medical problems, including no surgeries. The most detailed template was Obama’s annual presidential physical. The 2014 report contains far more information than he released when he first ran in 2008. It talks about immunizations. It lists medications (without giving doses), a fasting blood sugar level and cholesterol counts. There's also discussion of the status of his heart, lungs, eyes, head neck, bones, muscles, nerves and skin. ""Probably Hillary is about right since the standard is that most politicians conceal their debilitating illnesses or fabricate (maybe exaggerate) how wonderfully healthy they are,"" said Bert Rockman, professor emeritus of political science at Purdue University. Because of their age, ""there is bound to be something wrong with each of them despite Trump's likely-dictated note to his doctor, which meets the standard of a school boy note."" ""Of course, some candidates are in terrific shape — Romney and Obama, for example, and Carter,"" he said. ""And you likely wouldn't run for president if you were seriously (physically) debilitated,"" putting the cases of Kennedy and Roosevelt aside. ""In other words,"" said Rockman, ""the bar is really low, and Hillary likely met it by historical standards."" Our ruling Clinton said, ""You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama."" If Romney and Obama exemplify a standard, then the information Clinton has provided to the public is on a comparable level. But Clinton's statement implies a standard that doesn’t really exist, according to the experts. And both the quality and quantity of information on presidential candidates has varied widely. Claim: You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
[A]:
2