instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: On July 14 2019, a Facebook user shared a photograph purportedly illustrating the risks posed by grill brushes and the metal they can leave behind attaching to food that is consumed. In an attached status update, the poster warned:I would suggest to anyone that has a metal brush to clean your grill get rid of it. This is the result of eating a bristle off of one. I am looking at a long recovery. at Pelham Medical Center.In the attached image, an exposed abdomen bears a long and painful-looking scar with more thantwenty staples. No other details about the image were included with the post, but the obvious inference was that this was the result of surgery that was required after inadvertently ingesting metal fragments left on a grill by a cleaning brush.No information was included about how the injury manifested or which symptoms people already exposed to grilled foods might exhibit. However, news stories from previous years indicated that even if rare, summer grilling has occasionally led to people accidentally consuming food with grill brush debris attached.In May 2015, CBSreportedthat a Connecticut woman had been treated for the same injury. Her symptoms were described as a "sharp" and "unusual" pain:[In May 2015], a woman in Connecticut needed emergency surgery to remove a wire barbecue brush bristle from her digestive tract and doctors say she's not the first. Cheryl Harrison of Wallingford, Connecticut, was rushed to the hospital by her husband after feeling a sharp and unusual pain in her stomach.That pain was caused by a single stray bristle that had fallen off the metal grill cleaning brush and found its way into the hamburger she ate. She came into the emergency room within a day because of severe abdominal pain. After a CT scan showed the wire, doctors were able to remove it from her stomach through laparoscopic surgery.The article went on to describe a similar case in which the patient was not made aware of the injury as quickly. One doctor stated the injury was difficult to identify because the small size of the bristles meant they were difficult to find:Dr. Aziz Benbrahim, her general surgeon at MidState Medical Center, told CBS News she was lucky because she came in right away. A previous patient of his who had a grill brush wire stuck in his system waited for a couple of weeks. It had punctured his intestine."I had to open him up completely, " said Benbrahim. "Then we remove this wire and we found out also why he had chest pain because he also had pulmonary embolism, which is a blood clot in his lungs.""He was just lucky he was still alive," he added. "All from this wire."[]"Nobody knows the statistics, that's the problem. The only paper published talks about 6 or 7 cases and I believe it's a much, much more common," Benbrahim said. "When I was talking to my colleagues at the hospital, I was surprised that all of them had at least one or two patients like this. I didn't think it was that common. And this isn't a very big hospital, so I assume that in a bigger hospital they would have more."The story further noted that in one hospital, at least six patients had similarinjuries from ingesting grill brush wire over an 18-month period. One year later, WTSP reported that a man in Florida was injured the same way:A warning if you plan to fire up the grill this holiday weekend. A Lakeland man discovered a hidden health hazard the hard way, and it could be on your grill right now."This is my little parting gift," says Clif Hennecy. It's a souvenir from the doctor's office that Hennecy never imagined his doctor would find stuck in his stomach during a routine checkup."It's just a tiny, little bristle, but it's stainless steel," says Hennecy.The Lakeland man says the metal bristle came from the brush he used to use to clean his grill."It's a scary proposition having one of those lodged inside your stomach. It can cause abscesses, and cause infections, and it can cause people to die," Hennecy says.And in July 2017, a boy in Canada was hurtwhen he swallowed wire fragments:Jenna Kuchik was kicking back after a July 4 [2017] barbecue with her fiance and three children when her 4-year-old son, Oliver Schenn, began to scream in pain.Terrified, Kuchik ran for the EpiPen. Oliver, whom Kuchik and her fiance, Matt Schenn, affectionately call Ollie, has a severe nut allergy. But the boy was not exhibiting any of symptoms of a reaction only choking, screaming and crying.Twenty-four hours and two hospitals later, Ollie would emerge from surgery after doctors removed two tiny metal fibers from his esophagus. The culprit: the family's wire barbecue brush.That outlet included some statistics about frequency, noting it was low but acute, and possiblyunderreported:Barbecue brushes have caused an estimated 1,698 emergency room visits from 2002 to 2014, according to a study published in 2016 in the journal Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The rate of injuries is low when compared to similar emergencies, like children ingesting batteries, but the study's lead, Dr. David Chang, associate professor at the University of Missouri's department of otolaryngology, believes the data underrepresents the total volume of injuries. Urgent care clinics and primary care doctors likely see many similar cases that aren't covered by the data in Chang's study.A 2018 Consumer Reports article provided alternative methods of cleaning a grill without the ubiquitous wire brush:Consider alternative cleaning tools. Depending on what type of grill you have, you might try cleaning warm grill grates with a tool such as a pumice stone or a coil-shaped bristle-free brush. Check your owner's manual for recommendations You can also brush loose food particles off a warm grate with a wad of crumpled-up aluminum foil. Make sure grill grates are not hot enough to burn you.The claim about ingesting grill brush wires and requiring hospitalization represents a known but rare risk. Experts advise anyone who experiences symptoms like stomach pain after consuming grilled food to seek medical attention. Instead of using a wire grill brush, consumer safety advocates advise alternative grill cleaning methods, such as aluminum foil. Claim: People sometimes ingest metal fragments from grill brushes and become seriously injured.
answer:
Can Grill Brushes Cause You to Ingest Metal and Become Ill?

question:
Paragraph: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the "high cost" down, but it doesn't provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the "children" studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, "which is too small a sample size to prove anything." It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as "a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person's ability to interpret language." The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by "training at a learning development center." If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, "it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome." Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues
answer:
This story is the best of the three we reviewed about a study indicating that brain scans may help researchers understand brain structure and function in people who have dyslexia. It refrains from claiming that the work has near-term clinical implications for people who have trouble reading and writing. However, the bulk of the story is made up of personal stories about living with dyslexia, while key features of this research are buried deep in the story or left out entirely. What's more, the story describes the study participants as "children," thus leaving readers with the impression that researchers looked at beginning readers, when they actually were studying teenagers who presumably had been dealing with dyslexia for many years. In addition, the story tosses in a discussion of an unrelated study of dyslexia and spatial skills. Even people with advanced reading skills are likely to come away from this story befuddled about the scope, findings and implications of the research. Good reading skills are fundamental to educational, social and financial success. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability characterized by difficulties in word recognition, spelling and decoding. Most studies suggest early intervention is important, but little is known about why some children respond better than others. This research suggests that brain scans can provide insight to underlying mechanisms of dyslexia and perhaps help track and refine interventions that could be tailored to individuals. But for readers to understand the value of this study, stories must clearly describe the research and its implications.

question:
Paragraph: That finding is in a report released Wednesday by Michigan's auditor general. The Department of Environmental Quality says it could save a lot of money with an IT upgrade. The DEQ's Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance works with health departments, which inspect campgrounds, pools and septage waste haulers. But the audit says there's no shared database. The state must manually scan inspections, and paper copies can be lost during delivery. The audit says three IT systems "are in jeopardy of failing." DEQ has proposed a $6.5 million IT improvement that could save $9.4 million over six years, including $350,000 just in mail handling. Claim: Audit: A state environmental office has 'failing' IT systems.
answer:
A state office in charge of environmental health programs is stuck with old technology that affects how it communicates with local health departments.