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: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: Even before a show based on the Chernobyl disaster renewed interest both on and off social media, one of the most vivid online reminders of the April 1986 nuclear reactor meltdown continued to circulate online.A Facebook post that was shared more than 36,000 times on the platform in December 2019 contains a photograph of shows one of the remnants of the meltdown alongside a short description:The photo above is the closest humanity has ever come to creating Medusa. If you were to look at this, you would die instantly.The image is of a reactor core lava formation in the basement of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. It's called the Elephant's Foot and weighs hundreds of tons, but is only a couple meters across.Oh, and regarding the Medusa thing, this picture was taken through a mirror around the corner of the hallway. Because the wheeled camera they sent up to take pictures of it was destroyed by the radiation. The Elephant's Foot is almost as if it is a living creature.The post is a reprinting of a 2012 Tumblr post about the Elephant's Foot, one that is accurate about the origin of the photograph and not far off from the truth about the consequences of being in the presence of the toxic mix of uranium, silicon dioxide, and other materials which is still active. Dozens of workers died during the explosion and subsequent cleanup efforts due to acute radiation syndrome.As the science magazine Nautilus reported in 2013:After just 30 seconds of exposure, dizziness and fatigue will find you a week later. Two minutes of exposure and your cells will soon begin to hemorrhage; four minutes: vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. 300 seconds and you have two days to live.Other images of the Elephant's Foot have also gained notoriety. They are believed to have been taken 10 years after the fatal meltdown by a man identified as Artur Korneyev:In 2014, Korneyev was interviewed by the New York Times for a story on the construction of a $1.5 billion structure that would cap airborne emissions from escaping the site of the former reactor:Artur Korneyev, 65, a radiation specialist, at his home in Slavutich. After the accident, his job was to locate radioactive fuel on site and determine radiation levels to limit the exposure of other workers.These days Mr. Korneyev works in the project management unit, but because of his health he has cataracts and other problems related to his heavy radiation exposure during his first three years he is no longer allowed inside the plant. "Soviet radiation," he joked, "is the best radiation in the world."The site of the reactor and the neighboring town of Pripyat were made open for tours by the public in 2011. In 2019 the pop culture site Consequence of Sound reported that the success of the HBO show Chernobyl, a dramatization of the fatal disaster, led to a 35 percent increase in tour bookings compared to 2018. But one of the side-effects of that increased attention was an influx of visits from social media "influencers," who would post "sexy" photographs of themselves in the area."If you visit, please remember that a terrible tragedy occurred there," series creator Craig Mazin posted in response. "Comport yourselves with respect for all who suffered and sacrificed." Claim: "A photograph spreading online shows the ""Elephant's Foot"" lava flow at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster."
A:
Is This a Photograph of the Chernobyl 'Elephant's Foot'?