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: “The water affects everyone,” she said, which is why she believes her job is so important. Reese is studying public health and environmental health at East Carolina University in North Carolina. She will be an intern for the East Shore department, working on the Connecticut shoreline until the end of July. Reese spends her Tuesday mornings driving around to all the public and private natural swimming areas in Branford, North Branford and East Haven, collecting water samples and putting them on ice in her purple cooler. The samples are then collected by state Department of Public Health couriers and brought to the state lab in Rocky Hill for testing. Water quality testing has always been a priority for the East Shore department every summer, but this year, Alex Cinotti, the assistant director of health, has something he’s trying to prove. Every year, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the department collects weekly water samples from 12 water bodies used for swimming, both freshwater and saltwater, to ensure bacteria levels are low enough for public safety. Samples are collected and tested once a week, and as long as bacteria levels fall below state-determined risk levels, the beaches and other water bodies remain open. This year, however, Cinotti would like to take the sampling a step further — to show a direct correlation between rainfall and elevated bacteria levels, he said, as rain will often wash contaminants into public waters and cause bacteria levels to rise. “This is our opportunity to take samples and establish a pattern,” Cinotti said. “Bacteria is bacteria and we consider it pathogenic.” As such, in addition to the weekly sampling of water, Cinotti said that the department is collecting samples after heavy rains to see if bacteria levels rise after rainfall. This kind of analysis could not be done last summer, Cinotti said, because there were few rain events due to the drought. On the state level, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection will close public beaches after a significant amount of rainfall, in anticipation of potentially higher bacteria levels. Scott Szalkiewicz, a health program supervisor for the state Health Department, told the Register last summer that because samples take 24 hours to process, it’s helpful to be able to close beaches before test results come in when officials believe bacteria levels will be high based on the amount of rain and visual indicators. The East Shore District Health Department serves Branford, North Branford and East Haven. The 12 bathing waters surveyed each week include the east and west East Haven beaches, the Clark Avenue beach, Branford Point, Stony Creek, Hotchkiss Grove, Turtle Bay, Sunrise Cove, Lanphier Cove, Cedar Lake, Linsley Lake and Clear Lake. According to water quality records from the East Shore District Health Department in 2016, there was only one time when bacteria levels reached a level at which one of the beaches had to close. Sunrise Cove reached a level of 1,000 colonies of bacteria in the sample of 100 milliliters of water on Aug. 2, 2016, according to the records. Cinotti said that the safe levels for salt water are 104 colonies of bacteria per 100 milliliters of water and 235 colonies for fresh water per 100 milliliters of water. Some things that cause heightened bacteria levels include wild animal and dog feces, sewer overflows and leaks, Cinotti said. Rain may wash contaminants such as sewer overflows, nitrogen-rich pollutants and goose and dog feces into the Sound and other bathing water bodies. Potential health risks from swimming in water with high levels of bacteria include possible infections to open wounds and gastrointestinal illness when water is accidentally swallowed, Cinotti said. He added that it’s possible swimmers could contract eye- or ear-related illnesses from high levels of bacteria. “We really need to protect children,” Cinotti said. “They are more vulnerable than adults.” ___ Online: http://bit.ly/2rFTp4s ___ Information from: New Haven Register, http://www.nhregister.com Claim: Officials study link between rain and bacteria in water.
[A]: For Kellyn Reese, waking up on Tuesday mornings and going to the beach because it’s her job is a nice perk of being a summer intern at the East Shore District Health Department.


[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 news story does not mention costs, but a discussion of cost is relatively unimportant in the context of this story. The article says that CPR in any form ""may double the rate of survival from cardiac rest."" According to a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, this means that “we can save tens of thousands of lives.”  Later in the story the spokesperson is reported as saying that when more people use CPR in cities such as Seattle, survival rates have jumped to as high as 30%. An AHA scientific statement says cities such as Seattle have reported survival of “more than 15%.” It adds that hands-only CPR and other changes (e.g. dispatcher-assisted ""telephone"" CPR) could save ""thousands of additional lives"" every year."" This mix of relative and absolute estimates suggest there is surely some real benefit to increasing the use of CPR, but the precise amount of that benefit remains a bit fuzzy. The news article explains that when CPR is performed with chest compressions only (without mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) the main harm is rib fractures induced by energetic chest thumping. Although the story mentions that ""3 major studies published last year"" provide evidence to support the new AHA recommendations on CPR, it fails to discuss the quality of this evidence. The studies comparing survival after bystanders’ use of hand-only vs. standard CPR are necessarily observational. The story could have explained the possible limitation of such studies. The article explains that a tiny minority of people who need CPR actually receive it. It also reassures readers that untrained bystanders can perform CPR and potentially save lives. The story does not exaggerate the problem of untreated cardiac arrest. The article cites three sources, two of them associated with the American Heart Association (which developed the new guidelines) and one an apparently independent expert who supports the guidelines. The article discusses hands-only and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and explains that these are used while bystanders await other options—usually treatment by emergency medical personnel and/or automated external defibrillator and, ultimately, hospital medical staff. The news article makes it clear that virtually anyone can perform hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It requires no devices or drugs. The major barrier to treatment appears to be fear–of harm to the victim or rescuer, and/or and fear of failing to perform CPR correctly. The article points out that CPR has been taught in first-aid classes for more than 40 years. There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a press release." Claim: Hands-only CPR greatly increases survival odds
[A]:
This article summarizes recent research and expert opinion about new guidelines on bystanders’ use of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to treat victims of cardiac arrest. Overall, the story covers the topic well. However, it could offer readers just a bit more about the nature and strength of the evidence showing that hands-on CPR is as effective as standard CPR (which includes mouth-to-mouth resuscitation). The evidence comes from a mix of retrospective and prospective studies that are necessarily observational (not randomized controlled studies) and report the outcomes of bystanders’ attempts to revive someone suddenly stricken down. The studies are quite large, and involve hundreds and sometimes thousands of patients in different parts of the world. The news story could also fine-tune its discussion of the potential benefits of expanded use of hands-only CPR. Quantifying this benefit is surely tricky, but the current account provides inexact estimates without explaining the uncertainty surrounding them.