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: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. "Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease," said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it "pre-emptively retract publication" of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: "From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence." The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating "little, if any" processed meat and only "moderate amounts" of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF's director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. "The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer," she said. "This is not the case." In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find "a very small reduction in risk" in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association "was very uncertain." "Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach," Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had "grave concerns" about the potential of the new review "for damage to public understanding, and public health". But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. "This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that 'bacon is killing us'," said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain's Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. "To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn't be making recommendations that sound like they're based on solid evidence," she said. "There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you're decreasing it to improve your health, we don't have a lot of strong evidence to support that."

Answer: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

Question: "Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson stuck to his story about being offered a scholarship to West Point after a Politico article blasted him for ""fabricating"" the account. Carson has highlighted the offer to the prestigious military academy allegedly made by Gen. William Westmoreland in 1969 when Carson was aROTC student leader in Detroit in his books and comments throughout the years. But Carson never applied to West Point nor does Westmoreland's schedule place him in Detroit at the time Carson said he was, according to Politico. What's more, there's no such thing as a ""full scholarship"" to West Point, as everyone accepted to the five federal service academies receives free tuition in exchange for their service. When asked about discrepancy on ABC's This Week by host George Stephanopoulos, Carson said the academy itself uses the terminology. ""Wait a minute George, go look on the West Point website, and you'll see those specific words, 'full scholarship to West Point,' "" Carson saidNov. 8. ""So even though it is, you know, given as a grant for anybody who gets in, those words are used. And if a recruiter or somebody who's trying to get you to come there or trying to get you to do that, those are the very words they will use. It's on their website."" We wondered if the words really are advertised on West Point's website. We could not reach the military academy. Searching for the ""specific words 'full scholarship to West Point'"" turned up no results on West Point's own website or on Google. The official admissions page also makes no mention of a scholarship of any kind. Instead, it simply notes that tuition, room and board, and expenses are fully paid for those who are selected to attend West Point. The academy's diversity page, however, states that ""this four-year college experience is a fully funded scholarship."" Carson's spokesperson told us thatWest Point has referred to their benefits as a full scholarship in publications, a point Carson made in a Nov. 8 Facebookpost. He uploaded two West Point recruitment ads targeted at African-Americans that contain the word ""scholarship,"" including one from the 1960s, when he was a student. We also found examples of the words ""full scholarship"" used in publications that are linked on West Point's website, as well as some old recruiting advertisements: A dataset from 2014: ""At the United States Military Academy all students receive a full scholarship, including room & board and medical- and dental-care are provided by the U.S. Army."" A prospectus from 2012: ""As a cadet, you are a member of the U.S. Army and receive a full scholarship and an annual salary of more than $10,000 from which you pay for your uniforms, textbooks, a laptop computer, and incidents."" An ad in a 1991 issue of Black Enterprise magazine: ""Each year about 1,400 young men and women take advantage of the opportunity to attend West Point on a full government scholarship, which includes tuition, room and board and medical care. An ad that appeared in a few issues of Ebony magazine in 1990: ""You receive a full scholarship, earn a degree from one of the country's finest colleges, and build a foundation for a challenging career of service to the nation."" The financial benefits to attending military academies have been essentially described as scholarship-like or equivalent to a scholarship by USA Today, a West Point spokesperson in Forbes, and the Naval Academy. But the term ""full scholarship"" is an inaccurate description, experts told us. The phrase typically refers to a college providing financial aid to allow a candidate to attend a college free of charge, but that doesn't really apply to West Point's across-the-board zero-tuition policy, said Antonio Buehler, a West Point alumnus who founded the admissions coaching service Abrome. ""No such scholarship is named, every cadet is treated the same and there is an eight-year military commitment after graduation. Hence, not free,"" Buehler said. The proper terminology is ""appointment,"" said Vu Tran, a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy who runs the Denver-based admissions consulting firm Service Academy Coach. But because that's not apparent from the get-go, Tran says he can't fault Carson for using the term loosely, albeit incorrectly. ""I can definitely see where parents and students who are beginning the process can misconstrue it to be a scholarship,"" he said. ""But for those who have gone through the admission process and through the nomination process, they would never call it a scholarship."" Carson's use of the words ""full scholarship"" is even more inaccurate if he's describing his own experience, experts agreed. Tran told us it's conceivable aROTC commander or even a general would encourage a student to apply to West Point, touting the free tuition, but noted that anyone familiar with the process understands that that's contingent upon nomination and acceptance. ""(Carson) would not have been 'offered' the opportunity to attend West Point at no cost, like all other cadets, until he applied and received an appointment, which he never did,"" Buehler said. Our ruling Carson defended his use of the word scholarship in discussing his recruitment to West Point, saying, ""Go look on the West Point website and you'll see those specific words, 'full scholarship to West Point.'"" The military academy has used the words ""full scholarship"" a few times in admissions literature and advertisements and in one place on its website. However, experts say Carson's use of the word scholarship doesn't properly explain the application and appointment process to West Point. Carson's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of . Correction: After this story was published, we found an additional instance of the words ""full scholarship"" on West Point's website. The article has been updated to reflect that. The ruling remains ."

Answer: Go look on the West Point website and you'll see those specific words, 'full scholarship to West Point.' So even though it is, you know, given as a grant for anybody who gets in, those words are used.

Question: Twenty years and more than 12,380 shipments later, tons of Cold War-era waste from decades of bomb-making and nuclear research across the U.S. have been stashed in the salt caverns that make up the underground facility . Each week, several shipments of special boxes and barrels packed with lab coats, rubber gloves, tools and debris contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive elements are trucked to the site. But the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant has not been without issues. A 2014 radiation leak forced an expensive, nearly three-year closure, delayed the federal government's cleanup program and prompted policy changes at national laboratories and defense-related sites across the U.S. More recently, the U.S. Department of Energy said it would investigate reports that workers may have been exposed last year to hazardous chemicals. Still, supporters consider the repository a success, saying it provides a viable option for dealing with a multibillion-dollar mess that stretches from a decommissioned nuclear weapons production site in Washington state to one of the nation's top nuclear research labs, in Idaho, and locations as far east as South Carolina. If it weren't for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, many containers of plutonium-contaminated waste would be outside, exposed to the weather and susceptible to natural disasters, said J.R. Stroble, head of business operations at the Department of Energy's Carlsbad Field Office, which oversees the contractor that operates the repository. "The whole purpose of WIPP is to isolate this long-lived radioactive, hazardous waste from the accessible environment, from people and the things people need in order to live life on Earth," he told The Associated Press. Stroble and others in the communities surrounding the repository are steadfast in their conviction that the facility is a success. They point to 22 sites around the nation that have been cleaned up as a result of having somewhere to put the waste including Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons plant outside Denver that had a history of leaks, spills and other violations. For critics, that success is checkered at best since the repository is far from fulfilling its mission. "It's 80 percent through its lifetime, and it has disposed of less than 40 percent of the waste and has cost more than twice as much as it was supposed to," said Don Hancock with the watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center. "How great of a success is that?" Officials initially thought the facility would operate for about 25 years. Rather than wrapping up in the next few years, managers have bumped the timeline to 2050. The repository was carved out of an ancient salt formation about a half-mile (0.8 kilometer) below the surface, with the idea that the shifting salt would eventually entomb the radioactive waste. It was the National Academy of Sciences in the 1950s that first recommended disposing of atomic waste in deep geologic formations. Scientists began taking a hard look at the New Mexico site about two decades later. The scientists had to convince themselves and then federal regulators that it was safe. One of their tasks was determining that the ancient seawater trapped between the salt crystals and bound up in thin bands of clay within the salt deposit would pose no problems thousands of years later. "It was exciting to be working on what was then going to be the world's first deep-geologic repository for that class of waste," said Peter Swift, a senior scientist at Sandia National Laboratories. "Nothing that radioactive had been put that deep underground before. And that's still true 20 years later." While the real test will be what happens generations from now, Swift is confident in the science behind the project. But the wild card in whether the repository is ultimately deemed a success will be the human factor. After all, missteps by management were blamed for the 2014 radiation release. With some areas permanently sealed off due to contamination, more mining will have to be done to expand capacity. The federal government also is spending more than a half-billion dollars to install a new ventilation system, sink more shafts and make other upgrades aimed at returning to "normal business." Hancock and some former elected leaders involved in early discussions about the facility worry about the subterranean landfill becoming a dumping ground for high-level waste or commercial nuclear waste. But it would take an act of Congress to expand the repository's mission, and getting consent from New Mexico's delegates would be a tall order since the federal government still has no long-term plan for dealing with such waste. Nevada's proposed Yucca Mountain project is mothballed, and no other permanent disposal proposals are on the table. Toney Anaya, who served as New Mexico governor in the 1980s, remembers the heated debates about bringing more radioactive waste to the state. He said there were concerns about safety, but the promise of jobs was attractive. Some also argued New Mexico had a moral obligation given its legacy of uranium mining and its role in the development of the atomic bomb. Another former governor, Bill Richardson, was on both sides of the tug of war first as a young Democratic congressman who wanted to impose environmental standards and keep 18-wheelers loaded with waste from passing through the heart of Santa Fe. Then, he became U.S. energy secretary during the Clinton administration and pressured the state to clear the way for the repository to open. "For New Mexico, we've done our share of storing waste, and we've done it safely and effectively," Richardson said. "It's provided jobs, but I just think the future of the state is not nuclear." Southeastern New Mexico's ties to nuclear run deep and will continue for at least the next 30 years under the plans being charted now. Robust state regulation will be key in ensuring responsible management going forward, said Hancock, with the watchdog group. The problem, he said, is that besides the Cold War-era waste that has yet to be dealt with, the federal government and nuclear power plants keep generating more. "We need to decide what our capacities are actually going to be how much nuclear power waste are we going to create, how much nuclear weapons waste are we going to create so that we can then put our arms around the problem," Hancock said.

Answer:
First-of-its-kind US nuclear waste dump marks 20 years.