Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided." Now, I have a new situation: Tom and Jerry are two friends who have always had competitions with one another throughout their whole lives. Yesterday, they just finished their most unique competition so far. Each man was given a room to sit in that had several highly radioactive objects in it. The challenge was to see who would stay in the chamber longer. Tom didn't stay in his room for very long, but Jerry felt determined to win and stayed in his chamber almost the entire day. Answer this question please: Will Tom or Jerry be more likely to be getting cancer treatment two years from now?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Jerry

Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: Einstein showed in his thought experiments that people travelling at different speeds, while agreeing on cause and effect, measure different time separations between events, and can even observe different chronological orderings between non-causally related events. Though these effects are typically minute in the human experience, the effect becomes much more pronounced for objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. Subatomic particles exist for a well known average fraction of a second in a lab relatively at rest, but when travelling close to the speed of light they are measured to travel farther and exist for much longer than when at rest. According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists, on the average, for a standard amount of time known as its mean lifetime, and the distance it travels in that time is zero, because its velocity is zero. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seem to shorten. Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion. Now, I have a new situation: David wanted to test the theory of Einstein. To that end, he measured the time perceived by an airline pilot, who naturally traveled very fast. He labeled it as case A. To compare the pilot with a slower traveler he measured the time perceived by a semi truck driver covering the same distance. He labeled it as case B. He was amazed by the counter intuitive results he got from the experiment. Answer this question please: According to Einstein, who would perceive the distance as shorter, case A or case B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
case A

Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: Wildfire smoke contains particulate matter that may have adverse effects upon the human respiratory system. Evidence of the health effects of wildfire smoke should be relayed to the public so that exposure may be limited. Evidence of health effects can also be used to influence policy to promote positive health outcomes.Inhalation of smoke from a wildfire can be a health hazard. Wildfire smoke is composed of combustion products i.e. carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, particulate matter, organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides and other compounds. The principal health concern is the inhalation of particulate matter and carbon monoxide.Particulate matter (PM) is a type of air pollution made up of particles of dust and liquid droplets. They are characterized into three categories based on the diameter of the particle: coarse PM, fine PM, and ultrafine PM. Coarse particles are between 2.5 micrometers and 10 micrometers, fine particles measure 0.1 to 2.5 micrometers, and ultrafine particle are less than 0.1 micrometer. Each size can enter the body through inhalation, but the PM impact on the body varies by size. Coarse particles are filtered by the upper airways and these particles can accumulate and cause pulmonary inflammation. This can result in eye and sinus irritation as well as sore throat and coughing. Coarse PM is often composed of materials that are heavier and more toxic that lead to short-term effects with stronger impact.Smaller particulate moves further into the respiratory system creating issues deep into the lungs and the bloodstream. In asthma patients, PM2.5 causes inflammation but also increases oxidative stress in the epithelial cells. These particulates also cause apoptosis and autophagy in lung epithelial cells. Both processes cause the cells to be damaged and impacts the cell function. This damage impacts those with respiratory conditions such as asthma where the lung tissues and function are already compromised. The third PM type is ultra-fine PM (UFP). UFP can enter the bloodstream... Now, I have a new situation: Ben visited two states. Washington state, which had many wildfires year-round, and Oregon, state which had almost no wildfires. Ben enjoyed the visit and planned to return. Answer this question please: Which state had more people inhaling carbon monoxide from the wildfire smoke?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Washington