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.

Example Input: Paragraph: A recent count found 350 million purple sea urchins on one Oregon reef alone — more than a 10,000% increase since 2014. And in Northern California, 90% of the giant bull kelp forests have been devoured by the urchins, perhaps never to return. Vast “urchin barrens” — stretches of denuded seafloor dotted with nothing but hundreds of the spiny orbs — have spread to coastal Oregon, where kelp forests were once so thick it was impossible to navigate some areas by boat. The underwater annihilation is killing off important fisheries for red abalone and red sea urchins and creating such havoc that scientists in California are partnering with a private business to collect the over-abundant purple urchins and “ranch” them in a controlled environment for ultimate sale to a global seafood market. “We’re in uncharted territory,” said Scott Groth, a shellfish scientist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. “You can’t just go out and smash them. There’s too many. I don’t know what we can do.” The explosion of purple sea urchins is the latest symptom of a Pacific Northwest marine ecosystem that’s out of whack. Kelp has been struggling because of warmer-than-usual waters in the Pacific Ocean. And, in 2013, a mysterious disease began wiping out tens of millions of starfish, including a species called the sunflower sea star that is the only real predator of the ultra-hardy purple urchin. Around the same time, the purple urchins had two excellent breeding years — and with no predators, those gametes grew up and are now eating everything in sight. “You can imagine all of these small urchins growing up, each one of them looking for food, desperate for food. They’re literally starving out there,” said Steven Rumrill, lead shellfish expert at Oregon’s wildlife agency. “I’ve seen some big-scale fluctuations in the populations of sea stars and urchins, but never on this magnitude.” Scientists are not yet sure if climate change is responsible for the sea urchin explosion, but they suspect it plays a role in the cascade of events that allowed the purple urchins to boom. And kelp, already under siege from warming waters, is not as resilient as it once was, said Norah Eddy, an associate director at the Nature Conservancy California’s oceans program. “We’re going to see climate change as a big driver of changes in kelp forest as we move forward, and we are already seeing that,” said Eddy, who is leading an effort to use drones to map and monitor Northern California’s last remaining kelp forests. The devastation is also economic: Until now, red abalone and red sea urchins, a larger and meatier species of urchin, supported a thriving commercial fishery in both states. But 96% of red abalone have disappeared from California’s northern coast as the number of purple sea urchins increased six fold, according to a study released this week by the University of California, Davis. Last year, California closed its red abalone fishery, which poured an estimated $44 million into the coastal economy per year, and Oregon suspended permits for its 300 abalone divers for three years. The commercial harvest of red sea urchins in California and Oregon also has taken a massive hit. “That’s a huge economic loss for our small coastal communities,” said Cynthia Catton, a research associate with the University of California, Davis Bodega Marine Lab. “In California, there were 30,000 to 40,000 participants in (the abalone) fishery every year for decades, and for the first time ever that fishery had to close.” And while the purple urchins have eaten themselves into starvation as well, unlike other kelp-dependent creatures, the species can go into a dormant state, stop reproducing and live for years with no food. That means the only way to restore the kelp is to remove or destroy the purple urchins. Scientists estimate that in Oregon alone, it would take 15 to 20 years to remove all 100 million pounds (45 million kilograms) of purple urchins recently surveyed on just one large reef. While urchins are in starvation mode, the edible part — known as roe — shrivels, making them commercially worthless. Against this backdrop, conservationists, commercial urchin harvesters, scientists and private interests are coming together with an unusual plan: Pay underemployed red sea urchin divers to collect the shriveled, but living, purple sea urchins and transfer them to carefully tended urchin “ranches” to be fattened up for sale to seafood markets around the world. One company, Urchinomics, is already working on urchin ranching projects in Japan, Canada and California and sees a future where the overwhelming demand for wild urchin roe is replaced by a taste for human-raised purple urchins collected from the seafloor, allowing kelp forests to rebound. “We’re turning an ecological problem into an ecological opportunity and an economic opportunity,” said Brian Takeda, the Urchinomics CEO. “It’s the first time we’ve ever had an economic incentive to get these destructive urchins out of the water.” In Oregon, red urchin divers are a tiny artisanal collective, but they are also exploring ways to try to turn the glut of destructive purple urchins to their advantage. Oregon’s urchin fishery had a boom year last year, when red urchins were scarce in California but before their purple cousins had spread north. Now, they too are hurting. Rumrill, the shellfish expert from Oregon, supports efforts to harvest excess urchins but strikes a less optimistic note when it comes to saving the kelp. “That’s a promising technique. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we’re going to solve this large-scale ecological problem, this literal perfect storm of events, by eating our way out,” he said. “It’s just too big a problem.” ___ Chea reported from Mendocino County, California. ___ Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/gflaccus . Claim: Swarm of sea urchins wreaks destruction on US West Coast.
Example Output: Tens of millions of voracious purple sea urchins that have already chomped their way through towering underwater kelp forests in California are spreading north to Oregon, sending the delicate marine ecosystem off the shore into such disarray that other critical species are starving to death.

Example Input: Paragraph: The article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. The story detailed the relative harms of earlier mammograms, but did not translate those percentages into absolute numbers. For instance, women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 25 months or more after their last mammogram were “50 percent more likely” to need chemotherapy, “32 percent more likely” to need mastectomy, and “66 percent more likely” to need lymph nodes removed. However, relative risk can be misleading, sometimes inflating numbers to sound scarier than when absolute numbers are used. Also, we don’t know what kind of risk these women had at baseline, so it’s hard to know if they were higher risk. The story made no mention of the harms of earlier or more frequent screening, which have been documented time and time again. More screening can mean more false positives or more finding of breast changes that lead to more testing, such as biopsies, more costs, and more worry. The story did make clear some of the weaknesses of the study: The study found an association but did not prove causality and the study population was limited to a single health care institution. The story also mentions that the findings were presented at a meeting, which means they have not undergone peer-review. The story does not directly engage in fear-mongering. However, some of the quotes advocating for earlier and more frequent screening play into a scenario that breast cancer is lurking in every woman. A discussion of what a woman’s average lifetime risk is would have been helpful. The story quotes the study author and an outside source. The story makes clear that different advisory groups have differing guidelines for what age to start getting mammograms (40 or 50 years old). It would have been nice if the story had included examples of what makes someone higher risk or not (personal cancer history, family history, history of radiation), but we think this was satisfactory. We believe that mammograms are well-known to be widely available. And the earlier and more frequent screening described here is not earlier or more frequent than what many guidelines recommend, so would not be expected to be denied by health insurers. The story makes clear the distinctive aspects of this study —using avoidance of more aggressive treatment regimens as a deciding factor, as opposed to the more extreme avoidance of cancer death. The story goes beyond what was contained in a news release on the presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting. Claim: Earlier Mammograms May Mean Less Need for Aggressive Treatments
Example Output: This HealthDay news story reports on findings among women diagnosed with breast cancer: those who had longer intervals between mammograms end up getting more aggressive treatments, including chemotherapy and surgery. The story would have been stronger had it described the findings using absolute rather than relative numbers. But, we were glad to see an independent source offer some reservations about the small observational study raised. A final note — the image accompanying the story was laughably unrealistic. Mammograms are the primary screening method for detecting breast cancer. However, when to start getting mammograms and how often to get screened have been subjects of controversy for the past decade. That’s because the data on how to balance risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of harms from screening (unnecessary tests and procedures) are interpreted differently by doctors and other experts. A story that adds new data to the field and that might tip current guidelines one way or the other is newsworthy.

Example Input: Paragraph: The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Wednesday the beef was produced and packaged at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan on June 21 and shipped to retailers nationwide. The products include 3-, 10- and 20-pound (1.3-, 4.5- and 9-kilogram) packages of ground beef under the Our Certified, Excel, Sterling Silver, Certified and Fire River Farms brands with July 11 use or freeze by dates. Regulators warned that people should also check for the products in their freezers. They advise throwing the products away or returning them to the location of purchase. In a statement on Thursday, Cargill said all of the affected products have been removed from supermarkets. Food safety teams are reviewing the Fort Morgan facility and others “to ensure we continue to deliver safe food,” the statement said. “We were distressed to learn a fatality may be related to an E.coli contamination of one of our products,” it said. “Our hearts go out to the families and individuals affected by this issue.” The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service did not release information about the people who died or became ill, including locations. A spokeswoman referred questions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A representative for the CDC did not immediately return messages seeking more information. The Cargill plant had a smaller recall of Excel ground beef in August, but no illnesses had been reported at that time. Most people infected with E. coli develop diarrhea and vomiting. More severe infections can lead to kidney failure. Claim: Colorado meatpacker recalls ground beef after E. coli death.
Example Output:
A Colorado meatpacker is recalling more than 132,000 pounds (60,000 kilograms) of ground beef after a suspected E. coli outbreak killed one person and sickened 17, officials said.