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.

Sooner or later, the Grim Reaper comes for us all, but sometimes his mode of operation almost defies explanation. Take the 2004 demise of 24-year-old Phillip Quinn of Kent, Washington, who was done in by his lava lamp. An icon of the 1960s and 1970s that experienced a resurgence in popularity in the mid-1990s, lava lamps are generally considered benign items of the sort one might happily stare at for hours while in a marijuana-infused haze. They consist of blobs of wax suspended in a liquid enclosed by a glass or plastic container, the blobs rising and falling when the container is heated by a bulb at the base of the unit. The motion of the blobs is slow and rhythmic, almost hypnotic. It is therefore hard to conceive that one of these slow, soothing light shows could kill a man. Yet one did. Phillip Quinn was found dead in his trailer home with shards of glass from a lava lamp embedded in his chest, including a shard that pierced his heart. According to the medical examiner’s reconstruction of the events that caused the young man’s death, Quinn had been heating the lamp on the kitchen stove and likely had been standing in front of it when it exploded, then stumbled into his bedroom and died. “Why on earth he was heating a lava lamp on the stove, we don’t know,” said Kent Police spokesman Paul Petersen. Quinn’s death was ruled an accident.
A man was killed by an exploding lava lamp.

The study to be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroscience differs from many other pot-related research projects that are focused on chronic, heavy users of cannabis. The collaborative effort between Northwestern University’s medical school, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School showed a direct correlation between the number of times users smoked and abnormalities in the brain. “What we’re seeing is changes in people who are 18 to 25 in core brain regions that you never, ever want to fool around with,” said co-senior study author Dr. Hans Beiter, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University. In particular, the study identified changes to the nucleus accumbens and the nucleus amygdala, regions of the brain that are key to regulating emotion and motivation, in marijuana users who smoke between one and seven joints a week. The researchers found changes to the volume, shape and density of those brain regions. But more studies are needed to determine how those changes may have long-term consequences and whether they can be fixed with abstinence, Beiter said. “Our hypothesis from this early work is that these changes may be an early sign of what later becomes amotivation, where people aren’t focused on their goals,” he said. The study, which was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, comes as access to pot is expanding following 2012 votes in Washington state and Colorado to legalize its recreational use. The drug remains illegal under federal law. Medical pot is allowed in 20 U.S. states. Pot legalization advocates make the argument that marijuana is safer than alcohol a central part of their campaigns. Other research has found drinking alcohol alters the brain, Beiter said. But while researchers do not know exactly how the mental rewiring seen in pot users affects their lives, the study shows it physically changes the brain in ways that differ from drinking, he said. This latest study fits with other research showing marijuana use has significant effects on young people because their brains are still developing, and Beiter said he has become convinced that marijuana should only be used by people under 30 if they need it to manage pain from a terminal illness.
Casual pot use causes brain abnormalities in the young: study.

The practice, also known as microbirthing, involves wiping the swab over the baby’s mouth, eyes, face and skin to bring it into contact with bacteria from the birth canal. The hope is this may boost their gut bacteria, and reduce risk of conditions such as allergies or obesity, experts explained in a report in the BMJ British Medical Journal - yet scientific evidence to support it is severely lacking. “Demand for this process has increased among women attending hospitals in the UK – but this has outstripped professional awareness and guidance,” said Aubrey Cunnington, an honorary consultant in paediatric infectious diseases at Imperial College London, who co-wrote the BMJ report. “There is simply no evidence to suggest it has benefits - and it may carry potential risks.”  Some studies suggest that babies born by C-section have a different microbiome  - the collection of millions of bacteria living in the gut - to those born vaginally. Around one in four babies in Britain are born via caesarean section, according to the BMJ report, co-written by Cunningham and five other doctors. Research also shows that C-section babies have slightly increased risk of developing conditions such as obesity, allergies and autoimmune diseases later in life. Cunnington said a theory has developed that this may be because the bacteria the baby is exposed to in the birth canal during a vaginal birth colonise the baby’s gut, so exposing those who miss out on it might help protect them. “People have made a leap of logic that gut bacteria must be the link between caesarean section and risk of these diseases,” Cunningham said. “But we just don’t know this for sure - or whether we can even influence this by transferring bacteria on a swab from mum to baby.”  He added that while there is no evidence of benefits from “vaginal seeding”, the practice has potential risks such as transferring harmful bacteria to the baby. “Doctors, nurses, midwives and parents need to be aware they are doing something with a potential risk that currently doesn’t have any evidence of benefit,” Cunnington said. He added that evidence-based interventions, such as encouraging breast feeding and avoiding unnecessary antibiotics, could be “more important to a baby’s gut bacteria than worrying about transferring vaginal fluid on a swab”.

Doctors warn of demand for 'vaginal seeding' despite thin evidence.