| ▲ | djoldman 7 hours ago | |
The title confused me for most of the article because I assumed they were saying that getting an MRI was equivalently dangerous to a year of smoking. > So the same effort you would expend to get out of those activities on account of their risk, the same effort you should be willing to expend to get a full-body mri. "get out of those activities" | ||
| ▲ | mchusma 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
I was similarly confused. Saying a MRI is the equivalent of stopping smoking for 1 year earlier, or driving a motorcycle 10,000km less seems actually really good! Go MRIs! As another point, most of the negative costs of getting full body scans are actually poor reactions to the full body scans. The phrasing is "Hey, if you get more information, we are going to act badly on this information." I think the solution here should be just acting better on the information, not getting less information. | ||
| ▲ | m463 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Title might qualify for a change as "linkbait": Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html linkbait? | ||