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: Serge Haroche of France and American David Wineland, both 68, found ways to manipulate the very smallest particles of matter and light to observe strange behavior that previously could only be imagined in equations and thought experiments. Wineland once described his own work as a "parlor trick" that performed the seemingly magical feat of putting an object in two places at once. Other scientists praised the achievements as bringing to life the wildest dreams of science fiction. "The Nobel laureates have opened the door to a new era of experimentation with quantum physics by demonstrating the direct observation of individual quantum particles without destroying them," said the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awarded them the 8 million crown ($1.2 million) prize. "Perhaps the quantum computer will change our everyday lives in this century in the same radical way as the classical computer did in the last century." Haroche said he was walking in the street with his wife when he recognized the Swedish country code on the incoming call to inform him of the award. "I saw the area code 46, then I sat down," he told reporters in Sweden by telephone. "First I called my children, then I called my closest colleagues, without whom I would never have won this prize," he said. Asked how he would celebrate, he said: "I will have champagne, of course." He told Reuters he hoped the prize would give him a platform "that will allow me to communicate ideas, not just in this field of research but for research in general, fundamental research". Wineland was asleep at home in Boulder, Colorado, when the phone call from Stockholm arrived before dawn on Tuesday morning, he said at a press conference. (His wife answered.) Physics is the second of this year's crop of awards; scientists from Britain and Japan shared the first prize on Monday, in medicine, for adult stem cell research. The prizes, which reward achievements in science, literature and peace, were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of Swedish dynamite millionaire Alfred Nobel. "This year's Nobel Prize recognizes some of the most incredible experimental tests of the weirder aspects of quantum mechanics," said Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics at the University of Surrey in Britain. "Until the last decade or two, some of these results were nothing more than ideas in science fiction or, at best, the wilder imaginations of quantum physicists. Wineland and Haroche and their teams have shown just how strange the quantum world really is and opened up the potential for new technologies undreamt of not so long ago." Quantum physics studies the behavior of the fundamental building blocks of the universe at a scale smaller than atoms, when tiny particles act in strange ways that can only be described with advanced mathematics. Researchers have long dreamt of building "quantum computers" that would operate using that mathematics - able to conduct far more complicated calculations and hold vastly more data than classical computers. But they could only be built if the behavior of individual particles could be observed. "Single particles are not easily isolated from their surrounding environment, and they lose their mysterious quantum properties as soon as they interact with the outside world," the Nobel committee explained. "Through their ingenious laboratory methods Haroche and Wineland, together with their research groups, have managed to measure and control very fragile quantum states, which were previously thought inaccessible for direct observation. The new methods allow them to examine, control and count the particles." Both scientists work in the field of quantum optics, studying the fundamental interactions between light and matter. The Nobel committee said they used opposite approaches to the same problem: Wineland uses light particles - or photons - to measure and control particles of matter - electrons - while Haroche uses electrons to control and measure photons. In one of the strange properties of quantum mechanics, tiny particles act as if they are simultaneously in two locations, based on the likelihood that they would be found at either, known as a "superposition." It was long thought that it would be impossible to demonstrate this in a lab. But Wineland's "parlor trick" was to hit an atom with laser light, which according to quantum theory had a 50 percent chance of moving it, and observe the atom at two different locations, 80 billionths of a meter apart. In a normal computer, a switch must either be on or off. A quantum computer would work with switches that, like the particles in Wineland's experiment, behaved as if they were in more than one position at the same time. An example is a computer trying to work out the shortest route around town for a travelling salesman. A traditional computer might try every possible route and then choose the shortest. A quantum computer could do the calculation in one step, as if the salesman travelled each route simultaneously. Wineland is a dedicated experimentalist, not bothered by the bizarre philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, such as the notion that reality does not exist until an observer measures it. "You can find debate on this, but I'm not sure we're so special in the universe" as to have the power to bring reality into being, he told Reuters. His realism extends to applications of his work. "I wouldn't recommend anybody buy stock in a quantum computing company," Wineland told reporters, but he said he was optimistic that it might be possible to build one eventually. He plans to be part of the quest. Asked if his science career was nearing an end, he said he had no plans to retire "until they drag me out of here for being too old". ($1 = 6.6125 Swedish crowns) Claim: "Nobel for quantum ""parlor trick"" that could make super computers."

Answer: A French and an American scientist won the Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for finding ways to measure quantum particles without destroying them, which could make it possible to build a new kind of computer far more powerful than any seen before.

Question: Paragraph: Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson's Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J's home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn't reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here's what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there's no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn't use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it's relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there's no proof talc, which doesn't interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women's Health Initiative and the Nurses' Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women's health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. "Lord knows, with the amount of powder that's been applied to babies' bottoms, we would've seen something," if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute's Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection. "It is very hard to establish causal relationships," he said, adding, "A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer." Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. "The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small," Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma . Claim: Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.

Answer: For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

Question: Paragraph: "Conventional wisdom would tell us that most normal folks will never have an interaction with police like the one Eric Garner had that ultimately led to his death. Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter warned that might not necessarily be the case. Citing the work of Rutgers University law scholar Douglas Husak, Carter wrote on Dec. 4 that ""70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment."" Carter noted that's in part because there are 300,000 or more federal regulations that may be enforceable through criminal punishment. It's as though, Carter said, lawmakers tack on imprisonment to give a law heft. To paraphrase the old line, we are not just a nation of laws, we are a nation overrun by laws. Carter suggests reigning things in. The fact that 70 percent of people have committed a jailable offense is part of Carter's evidence. Wewanted to know if other legal experts thought it was correct. They do. Before we get to their reasons, let's be clear about what Carter and Husak are saying. By the way, Husak told us that Carter quoted him accurately. For Husak, the question wasn't whether any court would be likely to put someone behind bars for a particular offense, but whether the law gives them the power to do so. Husak said one need look no further than the laws on prescription drugs. If a doctor gave you a prescription for the common painkiller vicodin and your spouse brings it to you as you lie in bed, ""your spouse is dispensing a controlled substance without a license,"" Husak said. Would that ever be enforced? Not likely. But Husak said that is how the law is written. If that were not enough to get to 70 percent of adults, Husak factored in illicit drug use. According to a 2012 survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, over half of the people in every age group born after 1950 said they had used an illicit drug at some time in their lives, primarily marijuana or prescription drugs. That alone comes to about 84 million people, or 37 percent of all people over 20. While some legal experts we reached said they didn't know how you could come up with an exact number, just about all said it would be no trouble to keep adding more. Sonja Starr at the University of Michigan Law School said many people drink and drive. ""The Centers for Disease Control found 112 million self-reported incidences of drunk driving,"" Starr said, with the caveat that some drivers would report multiple offences. ""And that's just in a single year."" Starr said you could easily get to the 70 percent mark. By and large, Starr's counterparts at other law schools agreed. Bennett Capers, professor of law, Brooklyn Law School ""This doesn't give me pause at all. There are thousands of criminal statutes on the books, criminalizing things that some of us do without thinking. This runs the gamut from the serious (in New Jersey, it is technically a crime to have sex without first receiving ""freely given affirmative permission to the specific act of sexual penetration"") to the routine (fudging tax returns) to the mundane (illegal downloads)."" David Gray, professor of law, University of Maryland School of Law ""70 percent seems low to me. Once you factor in illegal drug use, crimes of recklessness (which seldom are detected because no harm accrues), downloading, DUI, failures to report income, and the scores of relatively innocuous offenses that just happen to carry the possibility of jail time in some jurisdictions, I'd be surprised if the percentage wasn't much higher than 70 percent over the course of most adults' lifetimes."" Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law and public health, Columbia Law School Fagan said he didn't know the right percentage, but he could believe the 70 percent figure. ""I've violated imprisonable offenses while fishing,"" Fagan said. Robert Weisberg, professor of law, Stanford Law School ""The number is unknowable, but it strikes me as plausible."" Laurie Levenson, professor of law at Loyola Law School Los Angeles ""It does seem to exaggerate the likely number of Americans who are at actual risk of prosecution and imprisonment,"" Levenson said. ""What we really need to pay attention to is the percent of Americans who commit crimes that are on the prosecutors' radar screens."" Levenson's point gets at a key ambiguity in Carter's statement. Much depends on the interpretation of ""could lead to imprisonment."" In his article, Carter made it clear he did not mean that imprisonment was in any way likely. His point was simply that too many laws carry too hefty a penalty and in theory, anyone could become ensnared. Our ruling Carter said that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. Based on a strictly technical reading of existing laws, the consensus among the legal experts we reached is that the number is reasonable. Way more than a majority of Americans have done something in their lives that runs afoul of some law that includes jail or prison time as a potential punishment. That said, experts acknowledged that the likelihood of arrest, prosecution or imprisonment is exceedingly low for many of Americans' ""crimes.""" Claim: More than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment.

Answer:
Carter said that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. Based on a strictly technical reading of existing laws, the consensus among the legal experts we reached is that the number is reasonable. Way more than a majority of Americans have done something in their lives that runs afoul of some law that includes jail or prison time as a potential punishment. That said, experts acknowledged that the likelihood of arrest, prosecution or imprisonment is exceedingly low for many of Americans' "crimes.".