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: In the interview, Bolsonaro also stuck to the government’s assertion that a Greek freighter caused the oil spill scattered across beaches along 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) of coastline even after the shipowner’s denial of any leakage from its vessel. “All signs point to this Greek cargo ship. All of them,” he told Record TV, adding that the leak, “by all accounts looks like it was criminal.” Brazil’s government has been striving to investigate the cause of the spill that has hit 321 beaches along the northeast coast since early September, hurting fishing and tourism. Authorities have described the spill as one of the country’s worst environmental disasters. The crude’s density renders it invisible from above, making it hard to track its origin or to have a clear picture of the amount of oil yet to reach Brazil’s coast. Some 4,000 tons of oil has been collected from northeastern beaches thus far, according to a statement Sunday from the Navy, Brazil’s environmental regulator, and the national petroleum agency. “To say how much oil there still is very difficult to say,” Commander Leonardo Puntel of the Brazilian Navy said at a press conference on Monday. “Since the oil is underwater, we don’t know if there’s still a lot or a little. There is effectively no correct and accurate way to monitor these oil spots,” he said, adding that they have seen a decrease in oil arriving onto beaches in recent days. He called the disaster “unprecedented.” “There is no case in the world of a large-scale oil spill where the origins are totally unknown. This case has no parallel, we don’t know who polluter is,” Puntel said. Brazil’s defense minister, Gen. Fernando Azevedo e Silva, also stressed how challenging it is to calculate the spill’s scope. “It is not detectable by satellite. ... It is imperceptible. We do not know how much will still come,” he said. David Zee, an oceanographer at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that the 4,000 tons of collected oil is “just the tip of the iceberg,” both because the cleanup effort is mostly limited to sandy beaches in populated areas and also because a large portion of spilled oil is likely spread deep beneath the ocean’s surface. Furthermore, when currents bring oil to sandy shores, it is relatively easy to collect, while is nearly impossible to remove from corals and mangrove forests, which make up part of the affected area, Zee said. Brazilian prosecutors have named Greek shipping company Delta Tankers Ltd as a suspect of the leak’s origins. The company issued a statement earlier saying it found no evidence of leakage after reviewing the ship’s cameras and sensors. “This material will be willingly shared with Brazilian authorities, should they contact the company regarding this investigation. So far, no such contact has been made,” the statement said. Federal Police officer Franco Perazzoni said at Monday’s press conference that the company will be officially notified via Interpol. Brazilian prosecutors said previously that Delta’s oil tanker, named Bouboulina, was navigating through Brazilian waters at the time and location of the spill. The ship was carrying oil from Venezuela to Malaysia. In a search order seen Friday by The Associated Press, Brazilian prosecutors said “there is no indication of another boat” that could have discharged the Venezuelan crude into the sea. Brazilian armed forces along with environmental protection agencies and petroleum authorities are leading an operation to clean, monitor and investigate the oil spill. Several public universities are conducting research about the spill’s origins and impact. Television footage has also shown volunteers flocking to beaches to help with the cleanup, often without government supervision. Of particular concern at the moment is the Abrolhos national marine park, home to Brazil’s largest coral reefs. Authorities said Sunday night that they had removed the fragments of oil that had appeared in the park and so far no new traces had been found. “A very small amount of oil arrived on November 2, on November 3 only a few fragments remained, today there’s none,” Puntel said in the Monday press conference. “Will more oil fragments come? Maybe.” Claim: Brazil reckons with new oil spill mystery: When will it end?.
[A]: Brazilian authorities said on Monday that they have no way of knowing how much more oil will wash ashore the country’s northeastern coast, despite President Jair Bolsonaro’s ominous warning during a Sunday night TV interview that “the worst is yet to come.”


[Q]: Paragraph: CES is allowing space for sex tech companies as a one-year trial. At the show, such companies were scattered throughout the health and wellness section, near startups pitching fitness trackers and infrared saunas. Lora DiCarlo, a startup that pushed for changes after organizers revoked its award, showed off its Osé robotic “personal massager.” It’s one of a dozen companies at the show focused on vibrators, lube dispensers and other sex tech products. Founders of these startups say their products are about empowerment and wellness for women, something they say has often been overlooked in tech. The historically male-dominated tech trade show has received criticism in past years for having an all-male lineup of speakers and for previously allowing scantily clad “booth babes,” fostering a “boys’ club” reputation. Besides allowing sex tech, CES organizers brought in an official “equality partner,” The Female Quotient, to help ensure gender diversity. The Female Quotient, which trains companies in equality practices, will hold a conference for women during the four-day show, which opened Tuesday. “It’s been a process,” said Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, which puts on CES. It’s been a longer process for many sex tech companies to convince investors that they are part of a growing trend that has enough customers. Much of the push has come from the startups’ female founders and from younger consumers who talk more openly about sexuality. As with other technologies, some exhibitors including Lora DiCarlo had prominent booths at CES, while others such as the wearable vibrator company Crave were tucked away. Crave’s exhibit included a camper with a “Build-a-Vibe-Workshop,” where attendees could get an engraved vibrator to wear around their neck. Sex tech has existed in some form for decades. But the gates really began to open in 2016, said Andrea Barrica, founder of sex education site O.school. That year, several other “fem tech” companies made progress in areas such as menstruation and menopause. Those paved the way for sex tech to grow and get investors interested. “Larger institutions are starting to take note, all the way from VC firms to large Fortune 100 companies,” said Barrica, who recently published the book “Sextech Revolution: The Future of Sexual Wellness.” Large institutions like CES had no choice but to look at sex tech, she said. The journey hasn’t been easy. Sex tech founders, many of them women, recount being turned down by dozens of investors. They faced decency arguments and entrenched corporate standards that equated them with porn. But investors are becoming more receptive, said Cindy Gallop, a former advertising executive turned sex tech entrepreneur and founder of the website MakeLoveNotPorn. “It’s entirely because of our refusal to allow the business world to put us down,” she said. Founders insist that their devices — ranging from vibrators to lube dispensers to accessories — have effects outside the bedroom. “Sexual health and wellness is health and wellness,” said Lora DiCarlo, CEO and founder of the company of the same name. “It does way more than just pleasure. It’s immediately connected to stress relief, to better sleep, to empowerment and confidence.” DiCarlo’s $290 Osé device has gotten $3 million worth of advance sales, bolstered in part by the attention it received after CES organizers overturned a decision by an independent panel of judges to give the vibrator a prestigious Innovation Honoree Award in the robotics and drone category. The organizers, CTA, told the company it reserved the right to rescind awards for devices deemed “immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image.” DiCarlo and other female founders pushed back for banning them but allowing humanoid sex robots meant to serve men the previous year. Following criticism, CES organizers ultimately  reinstated the award and apologized. A few months later, the show announced policy changes such as a dress code to prevent skimpy outfits and new “Innovation for All” sessions with senior diversity officials. Osé began shipping to customers this month. DiCarlo said the company is planning to introduce new devices, including less expensive options. Sex tech companies still face major barriers to growth. Polly Rodriguez, CEO of sexual wellness company Unbound, said the company is profitable and customers are more open about buying products than they once were. But she said she still faces roadblocks advertising on social media, and many traditional investors snub the company. “Things are better, but there’s just still this genuine fear of female sexuality more broadly within the institutional side of technology,” she said. And while Gallop offered to speak at CES, conference organizers declined, saying sex tech was not a part of its conference programming. ___ AP Business Writer Joseph Pisani contributed to this report. ___ AP’s CES coverage: https://apnews.com/Consumerelectronics Claim: Sex tech from women-led startups pops up at CES gadget show.
[A]: Sex tech is gracing the CES gadget show in Las Vegas this week, a year after organizers took fire for revoking an innovation award to a sex device company led by a female founder.


[Q]: Paragraph: "U.S. senators asked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley about U.N. peacekeeping missions during her confirmation hearing to be America’s ambassador to the United Nations. They were especially concerned about the war-torn nation of South Sudan, but Haley tackled peacekeeping more broadly. Haley said there were red flags. ""It's been devastating to see the exploitation, the fraud, abuse that's happening,"" Haley said Jan. 18. ""We have to acknowledge that some countries are contributing troops because they're making money off of them. So if they are not willing to make sure that they are punishing the violators, then we actually need to pull that country's troops out, because they're harming the peace process."" Haley was referring to cases where peacekeeping troops sexually abused the very people they were sent to protect. The most recent case involved soldiers from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea. But it was her assertion about countries making money off of peacekeeping that caught our eye. We took a closer look. The experts we reached agreed that yes, there is a financial incentive for certain nations. On the other hand, there was equally broad agreement that money isn’t the only factor. A little background on peacekeeping Under the banner of the United Nations, countries provide troops and equipment to troubled corners of the world to help them bridge the gap between conflict and stability. Right now, the U.N. has 16 operations, and nine of them are in Africa. Between troops, police and military observers, about 100,000 personnel make up the global peacekeeping force at a cost of about $1.9 billion for the year. Who sends the most troops? Ethiopia (8,165), Pakistan (6,774), India (6,752), Bangladesh (5,635) and Rwanda (5,125). Those five countries provide nearly a third of all peacekeepers. Why they send troops Money is a factor. Brett Schaefer, a Heritage Foundation analyst, told us the countries with the largest participation tend to be middle- or lower-income nations. ""Their payments to troops are low, and the amount they get from the U.N. is generally above that,"" Schaefer said. But he noted that gaining field experience, training and international prestige are powerful drivers too. Paul Williams at George Washington University also said the money should be put into perspective: ""It is very rarely, if ever the case, that this is the sole factor behind a state's decision to contribute troops."" For Bruce Jones at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based academic center, India proves that point. ""It’s one of the most important contributors to U.N. peacekeeping,"" Jones said. ""But it no longer makes money from peacekeeping. It now loses money, but it's still doing it. So that should tell us something."" If there’s a red flag to be waved with the U.N.’s African peacekeeping missions, it might have more to do with complex regional politics. Dyan Mazurana, a professor of international affairs at Tufts University, said some countries sending troops have a clear self-interest in the fate of their neighboring states. ""They are often playing a blurry role of peacekeepers, peace enforcement and being parties to the conflict, such as supporting various armed parties, selling weapons or extracting and profiting from natural resources,"" Mazurana said. None of the experts we reached found any connection between sexual assault and the payments to countries for the troops they send. They gave the U.N. credit for acting more swiftly to crack down on abuse, but they also said continued pressure is needed to ensure that the perpetrators actually face punishment. We reached Haley’s office but never received any comment on her statement. Our ruling Haley said that ""some countries"" contribute peacekeeping troops because they make money off the U.N. payments. Every expert we reached agreed that for some nations, the financial payoff is a factor. However, they all said that money was not the sole driver, and that countries gained military training and experience from the role they played. Haley offered an accurate but limited comment on peacekeeping troops." Claim: Some countries are contributing (peacekeeping) troops because they're making money off of them.
[A]:
"Haley said that ""some countries"" contribute peacekeeping troops because they make money off the U.N. payments. Every expert we reached agreed that for some nations, the financial payoff is a factor. However, they all said that money was not the sole driver, and that countries gained military training and experience from the role they played. Haley offered an accurate but limited comment on peacekeeping troops."