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.
--------
Question: Over 100 residents of the apartment buildings in southeast Colorado Springs have been told to leave in recent weeks, according to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment officials. Making matters worse, residents who left said looters broke in and took belongings they left behind. A Colorado Springs Gazette reporter witnessed a person break a window Friday at the buildings owned by Denver-based Slipstream Properties. Attempts by the newspaper to reach company officials for comment Friday were unsuccessful. Exposure to even minute amounts of asbestos can cause lung cancer and other deadly respiratory conditions. Slipstream Properties bought the buildings in 2018, raising hope that conditions in the apartments would improve after years of disrepair and code violations. The asbestos problem arose during recent renovations. Renovation work can disturb asbestos, which decades ago was used in a variety of building materials including insulation. "We're trying to understand how widespread this is, how many apartment complexes there are," said Curtis Burns, field operations unit supervisor for the state health department's asbestos unit. The building owners could face fines of $25,000 per day of noncompliance with asbestos-handling regulations, Burns said.

Answer: Asbestos, looting plague Colorado Springs apartments.

Question: The story makes it clear that cost of the test is currently speculative ("could cost about $500") and goes even further to caution that: "Johns Hopkins holds the patent and has not licensed it as yet to a company that would ultimately set the price." The story makes the two key results of the test quite clear. First, that the 1,005 people tested already had been diagnosed with one of eight common cancers, and the blood test was able to detect cancer in about 70 percent of them. Second, the test was also given to 812 people without cancer and only a false reading for cancer less than 1 percent of the time. Including the additional finding that the test was only able to detect cancer in about 40 percent of the patients with early cancer (ie. stage I) was a thoughtful way of introducing the relevant issue of falsely negative tests. The story does an excellent job of finding an independent source who explains that one of the potential risks of cancer screening tests is either identifying cancers that are not there, or are benign, and can lead to "pointless and potentially dangerous treatments." The opposite harm is also mentioned; that is, a screening test that erroneously gives a negative result, leading providers to falsely reassure a patientthat cancer is not there. Cautious language is used at many points in the story and it does three things quite well. First, it lists the most important limitation of the study: The screening test studied was unable to identify the type of cancer. Second, the implications of both falsely positive and falsely negative tests were explained succinctly and placed in a clinical context that would matter to those undergoing screening. Finally, we were very encouraged by the inclusion of this sentence: " the researchers will still have to demonstrate that the test improves and extends the lives of cancer patients." There is no disease mongering in this story. The two independent sources cited provide important context for understanding the strengths, limitations, and clinical context of the screening test. This was a tough call, but ultimately we felt the story would have been stronger had it mentioned the performance of current screening methods for some of the cancer types, such as Cologuard for colon cancer. That said, we were glad the story included some of the pitfalls of screening for prostate and breast cancer, as well as the long struggle to develop more blood tests for cancer. It's mentioned the authors of the study are "hoping their idea would eventually lead to a $500 test but they have a long way to go." Future studies of the screening test are also discussed, so it seems clear this test is not currently available. It's made clear that "there have been many attempts over the decades to develop blood tests to screen for cancers but these methods don't give reliable results." It's also pointed out that what makes this screening test unique is that it combines two previously used methods (screening for proteins and for DNA) into one test. This story does not appear to rely upon a news release.

Answer: Scientists Edge Closer To A Blood Test To Detect Cancers

Question: Policymakers and investors are turning up the heat on companies across sectors in the run up to global climate talks in Glasgow in November, demanding they assess the risks and put plans in place to mitigate them. Incoming United Nations climate envoy Mark Carney is pushing all companies to use a risk-assessment framework devised by the G20-backed Financial Stability Board's Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). As a leading contributor to global carbon emissions, through deforestation and the methane produced by livestock, the meat sector faced a particularly acute risk, but has yet to act in a meaningful way, the FAIRR Initiative investor group said. "Investors can see the inescapable truth for the meat sector is that it must adapt to climate change or face ruin in the years ahead," said Jeremy Coller, Founder of FAIRR and Chief Investment Officer at Coller Capital. "Conversely, there is also an appetizing prospect of enormous upside if the world's meat companies shift their protein mix to align with a climate-friendly path." Of 43 listed meat companies assessed, only two had publicly disclosed a climate-related scenario analysis, FAIRR said. The group, which includes Allianz Global Investors and Aberdeen Standard Investments, said it had created an online scenario analysis model, based on the TCFD framework, that investors could use to assess the risk to their portfolios. A 'climate progressive' pathway would see companies grow alternative proteins faster, and shift feed andlivestock mix towards less climate-influenced crops and species, while a 'climate regressive' pathway would keep things as they are. Following the second pathway would lead combined annual earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization at five of the leading assessed companies to be $8 billion lower by 2050 than if they follow the first pathway, FAIRR said. Among the risks factored into the model are the potential hit to profits of higher electricity costs due to carbon pricing; higher costs of feed due to poor crop yields; and increased livestock mortality due to heat stress. In addition, by 2050 alternative proteins such as plant-based burgers will account for at least 16% of the current meat market, FAIRR's model forecasts, rising to 62% depending on factors such as technology adoption rates, consumer trends and the potential imposition of a carbon tax on meat.

Answer:
Dead meat: Industry faces 'ruin' if slow on adapting to climate change.