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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The company said it will close the plant in Willowbrook, blaming "inaccurate and unfounded claims regarding Sterigenics and the unstable legislative and regulatory landscape in Illinois." In August, nearly three dozen people sued Sterigenics, claiming fumes from ethylene oxide, used to sterilize medical equipment at the Willowbrook facility, have adversely affected their health. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency closed the plant in February, finding that air sampling by town officials and the federal EPA consistently found high outdoor ambient levels of ethylene oxide. Federal regulators consider the gas a carcinogen. Sterigenics, in the past, has said ethylene oxide is the only process to sterilize medical instruments that is federally approved. "Sterigenics appreciates that the state of Illinois has clearly acknowledged the company's consistent record of regulatory compliance as well as the safety of the new controls we agreed to implement, and we made every effort to reach a constructive resolution," the company said in the statement announcing the plant's closing, adding that Illinois' political environment makes it unwise to operate the plant. Illinois House Republican leader, Rep. Jim Durkin, has been leading a fight against the company's effort to continue operations outside Chicago. The Legislature is also considering measures that would phase out use of ethylene oxide except in less populated areas. "Sterigenics got the message that we were never going to let them reopen their doors and poison our communities again," Durkin said in a statement. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and local officials in July reached an agreement with Sterigenics that would have allowed the plant to reopen after additional emission capture and control equipment was installed. Sterigenics also agreed to fund $300,000 in community projects designed in coordination with the state to benefit the environment and the local community. When that agreement was announced, company President Philip Macnabb said resolution of the matter puts the company a step closer to resuming the work of sterilizing vital medical products and devices for patients in Illinois and beyond. Sterigenics is a division of Ohio-based Sotera Health LLC, which provides safety services to the medical device, pharmaceutical, tissue and food industries. Claim: Chicago-area medical equipment cleaning plant won't reopen.

Ex Output:
Sterigenics, the medical supply sterilization company that has been battling lawsuits and claims of increased cancer rates from fumes, announced Monday it has decided against reopening its suburban Chicago plant.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that 'Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate', it didn't actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While theremay beevidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn't any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can't be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all

Ex Output:
This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn't my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinicalexperts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: In July 2014, Eric Garner was stopped by Daniel Pantaleo and several other NYPD officers on suspicion of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. After Garner protested that he was tired of being harassed and denied that he was selling cigarettes, several officers attempted to arrest him; Pantaleo took part in the efforts to restrain Garner, wrapping his arm around Garner's neck for about 15 to 19 seconds as the 43-year-old suspect yelled, "I can't breathe!" eleven times while lying face down on the sidewalk. Garner remained lying on the sidewalk for seven minutes while the officers waited for an ambulance to arrive and was pronounced dead at the hospital approximately one hour later. The entire incident was captured on video and prompted widespread outrage after a medical examiner concluded that Garner had been killed by "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police": In December 2014, a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict Daniel Pantaleo of criminal wrongdoing in the death of Eric Garner, with jurors determining there was not probable cause that a crime was committed by the NYPD officer and delivering a vote of "no true bill." The non-indictment of Pantaleo prompted another wave of protests, at one of which New York Daily News photographer Stephanie Keith snapped the award-winning picture of "a young white woman at the demonstration near the Barclays Center screaming in an officer's face, her open mouth inches from the cop's chin": Claim: Photograph shows a protester face-to-face with an NYPD officer.

Ex Output:
It isn't apparent from the photograph alone whether the young woman who is seemingly "standing fearlessly, pressed breasts-to-chest with a New York City police officer, passionately shouting in unchecked defiance as another officer looks on passively from a few paces away" is in fact screaming at the officer seen directly in front of her. The positioning and facial expressions of the persons in the image suggest that the woman might have been looking beyond the cop to shout at someone or something behind him (outside the right-hand frame of the camera), with the officer in the foreground positioned so as to prevent her from approaching any closer to the object of her ire.