instruction:
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: There is no discussion of cost in this release. The journal article says several institutions refused to provide their prices. Nevertheless, the high cost of robotic surgery is an important issue. The researchers wrote they were unable to say whether those high costs might be offset [or not] by certain potential benefits (such as shorter hospital stays), but the release should have at least acknowledged the cost issues. The release does report the percentage of patients in the robot-assisted and open surgery groups that were still alive with no signs of disease progression two years after their procedures: 72.3 percent of patients in the robotic surgery group compared with 71.6 percent in the open surgery group and it notes the difference was not statistically significant. It also reports that the robot-assisted surgery patients checked out of the hospital after six days on average, compared to 7 days for those in the open surgery group. The release reports only half as much blood loss in the robot surgery group, but does not report the amounts, which averaged 300 mL in the robot-assisted group vs. 700 mL in the open surgery group that's a difference of less than one pint. The release reports that patients who had robot-assisted surgery spent more time in the operating room than those having open procedures (seven hours vs. six hours). It also reports overall rates of adverse effects (67 percent in the robot group vs. 69 percent in the open group), along with listing the most common problems: urinary tract infections and intestinal obstructions. It would have helped if the release had pointed out that these complication rates were not statistically different. In a way, the release is satisfactory and yet maddeningly unsatisfactory. It tells readers that the study was a randomly controlled trial with 350 patients, but it buries the most important point: that the ability of these researchers to do this sort of rigorous trial comparing robot-assisted surgery with open techniques highlights how few such trials are done. Deep in the release, the researchers are quoted as saying the findings "underscore the need for further high-quality trials to assess surgical innovation before this surgical technique is widely adopted in clinical practice" and further that "It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate)." The quality of the evidence should have been the lead. The release does not exaggerate the prevalence of bladder cancer. It does not push treatment on those who are unlikely to benefit. The release could be interpreted as promoting a newer more expensive form of therapy that doesn't provide any advantages over the standard therapy. Although the release reports that the study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, it fails to note the financial disclosures several researchers made about money they have received from companies relevant to this study. The comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery was the main point of the release. The release makes clear that both techniques are available including at the institution that issued the release. The release could have informed readers that, according to the published paper, that all ofthe operators in this study haddone at least 10 robot-assisted cystectomies before being allowed to participate in the study. When widespread adoption of the robot-assisted procedure occurs, it would be possible that many surgeons would not have completed that many robotic cystectomies. While the release does tell readers that what is really new here is the use of randomization to compare robot-assisted surgery to open surgery for bladder cancer, it manages to bury that lead so deep under the poorly worded description of the results of this non-inferiority trial that the thrust of the release is unsatisfactory. The release doesn't employ unjustified, sensational language. Claim: Robotic surgery as effective as open surgery for bladder cancer
answer:
This news release about a trial that randomly assigned people with bladder cancer to either robot-assisted or open surgery buried the real news under a weak lead that garbles the findings. The news here is that, contrary to assertions of many proponents of robot-assisted surgery, it is possible to randomize patients in order to get a valuable comparison instead of relying on weaker study designs that can't answer the fundamental question about how old and new techniques compare. The release is rated as satisfactory on many criteria because key information was included in the body of the release, but the headline proclaiming that robot surgery is "as effective" as open surgery misses the larger point. The headline and lead also put a pro-robot spin on the results, which could also be summarized as robot surgery is "not clearly worse." Also not explained: robot-assisted surgery is more expensive. The final sentence of the release, a quote from a researcher, should have been the lead: "It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate)." We are bombarded with releases and news stories trumpeting results from studies of robot-assisted surgery that don't actually compare the new technology to existing practice. These studies often lack any control group or use historical data that may not be truly comparable. The promoters of expensive new devices then claim that they are relying on the best available evidence. This trial shows better evidence can (and should) be gathered. And in this case, good quality evidence indicates little difference in the techniques, despite what all the big hospital billboards about robot surgery proclaim.

question:
Paragraph: Amid mounting global concern over the public health implications of so-called e-cigarettes, Touraine said they faced the same fate as traditional ones: a ban on smoking in public spaces and sales to minors and a blackout on media advertising. In a country where the pungent waft of Gaulloises and Gitanes once seemed an unassailable part of cafe culture, smokers have long been banished to outdoor terrace seats. The near-odorless electronic alternative - battery-driven devices that allow users inhale odorless nicotine-laced vapor rather than smoke - are gaining ground in no-go zones such as bars, cafes, trains, waiting rooms and offices. A government-commissioned report said this week that around 500,000 people in France had turned to e-cigarettes, which are designed to look like cigarettes although some come in different colors, and recommended a crackdown on public use. Health officials in many countries say the impact of electronic cigarettes on health needs further study. Another worry they cite is that the electronic alternative will increase the general temptation to smoke, including enticing those who have quit to start again, or that smokers may use them alongside rather than instead of regular cigarettes. "This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking," said Touraine, who announced her plans at a news conference. In the United States, the number of smokers who have tried out e-cigarettes doubled to one in five in 2011 and the number of all adults trying it doubled too, to 6 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In France, a country of 66 million, the government says tobacco smoking kills some 66,000 people a year and another 5,000 are killed through passive exposure to smoke. The expert in charge of the French report advised against an outright ban on e-cigarettes, however, saying they still seemed safer than tar-laden tobacco. Electronic cigarettes, whose invention is widely credited to a Chinese pharmacist a decade ago, usually comprise disposable cartridges of liquid such as propylene glycol that is easily turned to vapor and can contain artificial flavors alongside concentrated liquid nicotine. Claim: France to ban electronic cigarettes in public.
answer:
France will ban electronic cigarette smoking in public places by imposing the same curbs enforced since 2007 to combat tobacco smoking, Health Minister Marisol Touraine said on Friday.

question:
Paragraph: U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill on Wednesday ordered the Forest Service to examine how exploratory drilling by British Columbia-based Otis Gold Corporation could affect groundwater and possibly fish. The company's Kilgore Project covers about 19 square miles (50 square kilometers) on Forest Service land and land managed by the state of Idaho in Clark County about 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of Idaho Falls. The company says the area contains about 825,000 ounces (23.4 million grams) of gold. The company in a summary of its plans says it would like to get the gold by digging an open-pit mine. Such a mine would require additional approval from the Forest Service. The Forest Service in August 2018 approved the expansion of the exploration part of the project that includes 10 miles (16 kilometers) of new roads and 140 drill stations. The Idaho Conservation League and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition filed the lawsuit in November 2018 contending the exploratory drilling could pollute groundwater and surface water. The groups also said the drilling would harm grizzly bears, whitebark pine, Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Columbia spotted frogs. Winmill ruled the Forest Service didn't violate environmental laws in determining the exploratory drilling wouldn't overly harm grizzly bears, whitebark pine or Columbia spotted frogs. However, Winmill found the Forest Service hadn't done an adequate analysis involving groundwater quality in the Dog Bone Ridge drainage, home to Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The trout are considered a sensitive species facing threats to its population or habitat. "The Court's ruling affirms that the Forest Service must fully assess impacts to water and sensitive species before approving mining exploration," said Laird Lucas of Advocates for the West, a legal firm that is representing the environmental groups. "There should be no doubt: Water is more precious than gold in Idaho." The U.S. Department of Justice, which defends federal agencies in lawsuits, didn't immediately respond to an inquiry from The Associated Press. Craig Lindsay, president and CEO of Otis Gold Corp., didn't immediately return a call from the AP. Otis Gold Corporation is one of two British Columbia-based companies hoping to mine for gold in Idaho with open-pit mines. The other is Midas Gold, which wants to expand two open pits and create a third in an area about 40 miles (65 kilometers) east of McCall. That area has been heavily mined for a century and Midas Gold says it will restore the area as part of its mining plan. The company's plans are in an environmental review process. Claim: Ruling puts hold on gold exploration plans in eastern Idaho.
answer:
The U.S. Forest Service violated environmental laws by failing to adequately consider potential harm to Yellowstone cutthroat trout in a Canadian mining company's plans to expand its search for gold in eastern Idaho, a judge has ruled.