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.
--------
Question: Researchers set out to determine what killed coral near the $205 million dredge work at the port, which was done to make way for the larger ships sailing through an expanded Panama Canal to bring cargo to South Florida. Their study, published this month in the online journal PeerJ, compared work done in the channel to nearby coral. It puts at odds two governmental agencies that clashed over the dredge. Environmentalists had long worried that that $205 million dredging would damage the coral. The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2gFJYNi ) reports the Corps contended a disease outbreak was responsible. State environmental regulators argued that mud stirred up by the dredge or leaked by a barge as it ferried sediment offshore smothered coral. The research team studied pictures taken before, during and after the dredge and said sediment spread across an area about 14 times bigger than the Corps permit allowed for. The study found that warm temperatures in the summer of 2014 triggered widespread bleaching and disease and the coral — stressed by the sediment — died in larger numbers than nearby coral. The project deepened the port’s channel by 6 feet, making it 52-feet deep. It completes a $1 billion makeover that includes a new tunnel at the port. “We now know the Corps dramatically underestimated both the severity and the geographic extent of the sediment impacts on the reef,” said Miami Waterkeeper Rachel Silverstein, whose group joined other conservationists in a legal fight to clean up the dredge. “The monitoring and the protocols that were supposed to protect this reef during the dredge clearly failed and this study is providing peer-reviewed, statistically valid evidence showing that impacts from the dredging resulted in widespread impacts.” Beginning in the summer of 2015, the fisheries service repeatedly warned the Corps that damage appeared to be more widespread and the agency was in danger of violating its permit. The Herald reports that the Corps also failed to provide updated surveys of the work, which prompted the fisheries service to issue a sharp letter accusing the agency of selectively choosing “certain results to downplay the permanent effects” of the dredge. Corps officials said the study used limited data and failed to distinguish between the types of sediment that buried coral during the dredge. “Drawing broad scale conclusions based on limited data is very misleading and not good science,” Corps spokeswoman Susan Jackson told the Herald via email. She said the agency is “committed to understanding potential impacts” and has expanded monitoring efforts, which include cameras on the ocean floor to record conditions. The researchers conclude that the study highlights the need to be more careful when dredging near sensitive reefs and should serve as a warning for the upcoming $374 million expansion at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com

Answer: Study: Mud stirred up during PortMiami dredge killed coral.


Question: "The story provides the cost of the CT scan as well as angiography. However, the story should have discussed insurance coverage for the scans. The story describes the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures. The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as the implications of false positive or false negative test results. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, including a criticism from one expert that the study ""cherry-picked"" patients to include in the study in order to maximize the findings. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or ""worried well"". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial. The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to the heart CT. The story clearly states that the CT scans are relatively new and available in many hospitals, however it is not clear how many hospitals have purchased these machines. The story adequately describes the novelty of the scans. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."

Answer: ‘Super X-rays’ show promise for finding heart disease but produce high radiation dose


Question: The findings offer another reason for doctors to limit  their use of the drugs, which are overused in the United  States, the team at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention said. “This number is an important reminder for physicians and  patients that antibiotics can have serious side effects and  should only be taken when necessary,” said the CDC’s Dr. Daniel  Budnitz, who led the study. For the first report ever done on adverse reactions to  antibiotics in the United States, the researchers used the  National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative  Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project, a sample of 63 U.S.  hospitals, between 2004 and 2006. They found more than 6,600 emergency visits were due to an  adverse reaction to an antibiotic. They used formulas to  extrapolate this to the whole country and estimated that  142,000 such emergency visits are made every year. “Systemic antibiotics (pills or injections as opposed to  creams) were implicated in 19.3 percent of all emergency  department visits for drug-related adverse events,” they wrote  in the September 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Penicillin and related antibiotics such as amoxicillin,  widely prescribed and widely seen as safe, accounted for half  the emergency visits. Other classes of antibiotics such as  cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and newer antibiotics  accounted for the rest. “Persons aged 15-44 years accounted for an estimated 41.2  percent of ED visits. Infants accounted for only an estimated  6.3 percent of ED visits,” they wrote. Budnitz and colleagues said 78 percent of the adverse  events in the study were allergic reactions, ranging from rash  to a serious reaction known as anaphylaxis, and the remaining  22 percent were caused by errors and overdoses. Many studies have suggested that half of the estimated 100  million antibiotic prescriptions written for respiratory tract  infections in the United States are unnecessary. Most such  infections are caused by viruses, and antibiotics are useless  against them. But, Budnitz and colleagues said, doctors still often  believe their patients are exceptions to the rule and continue  to write the prescriptions. “Because antibiotics are frequently used, both  appropriately and inappropriately, if doctors would reduce the  number of antibiotics they prescribe to their patients by even  a small percentage, we could significantly reduce the number of  emergency visits for antibiotic adverse events,” Budnitz said  in a statement. “Antibiotics are among the most frequently used medications  in the United States. Annually, antibiotics are prescribed to  an estimated 16 percent of patients during ambulatory care  visits, and pharmaceutical manufacturers spend $1 billion  promoting antibiotics,” Budnitz wrote.

Answer:
Study finds 140,000 bad reactions to antibiotics.