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: WTOP-FM reports that the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department is partnering with the National Fire Protection Association Research Foundation on a four-phase study. Part of the focus of the study will be on how chemicals can cling to breathing equipment used by firefighters. Firefighters are exposed to toxic chemicals released into the air by burning buildings and vehicles. According to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study, firefighters are twice as likely to get skin and testicular cancer and mesothelioma. ___ Information from: WTOP-FM, http://www.wtop.com Claim: Firefighters study carcinogen exposure.
[A]: Firefighters in Virginia are taking part in a study aimed at finding ways to reduce their exposure to carcinogens.


[Q]: Paragraph: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. “This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state,” he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company’s experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring — although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state’s process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. “Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations,” she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. “As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet,” he said in a statement. Claim: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.
[A]: An advisory panel has released a technical report that covers how emissions are produced by oil and natural gas development and how New Mexico might be able to curb pollution from the industry.


[Q]: Paragraph: The story does not address cost at all. The story is focused primarily on childbirth practices in the U.K., which has a significantly different healthcare system from that in the U.S. However, the story does discuss childbirth practices in the U.S., and speaks to U.S. experts on the subject. Home births are often significantly less expensive than hospital or birth center deliveries, but there are still costs involved. The story would have been stronger if it had addressed this, even in broad terms. The story addresses benefits in only general terms. For example, when summarizing the NICE guidance, the story states “home births are safer than hospital births for women who are having their second or later child with a low-risk pregnancy.” And when describing the findings of the U.K. study that was the basis for the guidance, the story notes that “among low-risk women who chose to have a second or later child at home, there were fewer interventions and complications, such as cesarean sections, forceps delivery, infections and hemorrhage compared with hospital births, while the health of babies didn’t differ.” How much safer are home births under the relevant circumstances? How much lower was the risk of complications? It would be helpful to have at minimum an estimate of a summary figure, such as the frequency of complications and interventions overall for home and/or hospital births. In addition, while the story makes clear that the reduced risk is only for women with low-risk pregnancies — it doesn’t tell readers what that means. Does having had a previous C-section rule out a low-risk pregnancy? Which chronic medical conditions might rule a low-risk pregnancy out? It’s not clear. Potential harms are mentioned at different points in the report: maternal deaths; interventions and complications, such as cesarean sections, forceps delivery, infections and hemorrhage compared with hospital births; “complications” for the babies. But the story does not really explore the difference (if any) between risks that would be of potentially greater concern during home birth versus hospital birth — or vice versa. The story does note that the U.K. study behind the guidance found that there was a slightly increased risk of complications for babies born at home if it was the mother’s first birth. We’ll rule this Satisfactory with suggestions noted for next time. The story reports on an expert guideline published last spring that draws on a high-quality UK cohort study (Birthplace) and a Canadian case-control study.The story offers a broad overview of the cohort study that served as the basis for the NICE guidance. The overview would have been stronger if it had offered some additional details, such as information on the likelihood of complications for mothers and infants in both home and hospital settings. However, the story did include a link directly to the relevant research, which is always laudable. The story also offers limited details about the Canadian case-control study — but again the story linked directly to the study. One thing that’s missing from the discussion is any explanation of the hierarchy of evidence — how these two studies differ from one another and how the evidence they provide might compare to, say, a randomized trial. No disease mongering here. The story was very careful not to over-hype risks associated with giving birth, whether at home or in the hospital. This was a strong point for the story. The story cites multiple sources on both sides of the issue, and clearly notes when a given source has written about the issue and what that source’s position was. The story is, by its nature, about comparing alternatives. The story looks explicitly at home births compared to births in medical centers; and, among medical centers, the story explains the difference between hospitals and birth centers. This is another close one. The story does explain the difference between hospitals and birth centers, but doesn’t let readers know how common birth centers are in the U.S. Nor does it mention the availability of midwife services for home births, which can vary by state. However, the story does cite one U.S.obstetrics expert as saying that more birth centers could be established. Because the story addressed the issue, at least tangentially, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. The novelty here, which the story emphasizes, is the evidence-based statement from an expert medical group that hospital births may be riskier than home births for uncomplicated second or later pregnancies. It is unusual to see a medical group recommending against a higher level of medical intervention. With that being said, there is a fairly broad body of work on risks associated with childbirth, and home birth in particular, but the story only mentions the U.K. and Canada studies we noted above. While other research findings may not offer as convenient a comparison to the study used to inform the NICE guidance, they could help readers understand the levels of absolute risk facing mothers and infants at home, in hospitals, or at birth centers. And if the U.K. and Canada studies offer insights that were simply not to be found in other work, that would have been worth mentioning too. But the story earned a Satisfactory here. The story does not seem to be tied a news release, and clearly draws from interviews with multiple sources. Claim: New Support for Home Births U.K. board NICE, in a surprise, rules having a baby at home is safer than a hospital in some low-risk pregnancies
[A]:
The story looks at guidance from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) — and related research — to pregnant women. Specifically, the guidance says home births pose fewer risks than hospital births for woman with low-risk pregnancies who are not having their first child. The story features plenty of expert views on both sides of this issue and is well-reported overall. However, it does little to explain the difference in risk between home and hospital births to readers — and it never defines what constitutes a “low-risk” pregnancy in this context. Giving birth is an intensely personal experience, and therefore the decision about where to give birth is an extremely personal decision. It’s also a decision that can affect the health and well-being of both mother and child. More than 3.9 million children were born in the U.S. in 2013, so this is clearly a subject that affects a great many people, and the range of factors that come into play when making that decision is significant. A story that specifically highlights a reported reduction in risk for at least some home births should be sure to clearly articulate that difference in risk, and to explain precisely how those risks change for both mother and child.