Is the author confusing MRI with a CAT scan? or is there a health risk associated with high flux magnetic fields that I am unfamiliar with.

update: The article is second order analysis. need to read it's linked article to understand it is more about the costs(including psychological) of questionable tests and not a direct health risk of MRI devices.

The title is confusing without context and it doesn't clarify its meaning for a quite a while. I made the same wrong assumption as you at first. Then, before I made it to the end, I made the same wrong new assumption you made in your update to your comment! (it being about negative second-order effects - it's not)

No, what they are saying is that getting an MRI is as good as smoking for a year is bad, using some very fuzzy units of measurement. So getting an MRI "earns" you the reward of being allowed to smoke for a year (the author is being humorous).

The title and intro are badly worded.

The conclusion is “you should do MRIs it is equivalently beneficial as all of ___ are bad for you”

Is the commentator not even opening the article before commenting?

Click the link.