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.

Q: 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."

A: "A photograph spreading online shows the ""Elephant's Foot"" lava flow at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster."
****
Q: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate isfollowed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month's supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate "had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent" than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) forhalf as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We're not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: "relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y." We'll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone "were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis," although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are thesuperficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to notstatistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn't demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children's Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, "Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org," but that information is behind the journal's paywall for most readers, so it's unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatmentsfor B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient's survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings.

A: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug
****
Q: The National Health Commission said on Monday that 78 new asymptomatic cases had been identified as of the end of Sunday, compared with 47 the day before. Imported cases and asymptomatic patients, who show no symptoms but can still pass the virus on, have become China's chief concern after draconian containment measures succeeded in slashing the overall infection rate. Hubei province, the original epicentre, accounted for almost half the new asymptomatic cases. A total of 705 people with asymptomatic cases were under medical observation around mainland China. The surge in asymptomatic cases, which China only began reporting last week, poses a worry as Hubei's capital Wuhan prepares to allow people to leave the city on April 8 for the first time since it was locked down in late January. Wuhan officials revoked the "epidemic-free" status of 45 residential compounds due to the emergence of asymptomatic cases and other unspecified reasons, according to a report on Monday by the official Xinhua news agency. "Epidemic-free" status allows people living in Wuhan compounds to leave their homes for two hours at a time. China has now reported a total of 81,708 cases, with 3,331 deaths. One new locally transmitted infection was reported in the latest data, in the southern province of Guangdong, down from five a day earlier in the same province. China has closed its borders to foreigners as the virus spreads globally, though most imported cases have involved Chinese nationals returning from overseas. It began testing all international arrivals for the coronavirus from April 1, customs official Song Yueqian said. Of the new cases showing symptoms, 38 entered China from abroad, compared with 25 a day earlier. Of those, 20 arrived in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang from neighbouring Russia. All were Chinese citizens who had flown from Moscow to Vladivostok and travelled to China overland. China will work to prevent cases being imported through land borders, the government said after a meeting chaired by Premier Li Keqiang on Monday,which noted the number of such cases had exceeded cases recorded at airports recently. Those who try to hide their travel history or health condition face a fine of up to 30,000 yuan ($4,230) or even criminal proceedings, Song said, adding such people will be placed on a customs "blacklist" of travellers who will be subject to tighter checks in future. Another possible source of infection are the 1.6 million Chinese who study overseas, many of whom have struggled to return home since international flights were reduced. Charter flights are being arranged to bring home Chinese students in the United States, starting with the youngest, China's embassy in Washington said. The ambassador, Cui Tiankai, noted in the New York Times on Monday there had been "unpleasant talk" between the two countries about the virus. "But this is not the time for finger-pointing. This is a time for solidarity, collaboration and mutual support," Cui wrote. Amid criticism China was too slow to warn the international community about the outbreak, Xinhua on Monday published a "detailed timeline" of the country's coronavirus response and information sharing, from late December 2019 to March 2020. China started reporting to the United States "regularly" on the epidemic and containment measures from Jan. 3, according to the timeline. Click here for an interactive GRAPHIC tracking global spread of coronavirus

A:
China sees rise in asymptomatic coronavirus cases, to tighten controls at land borders.
****