20 ms·
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
by somat 3mo ago
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.
- pqdbr 3mo agoIs the commentator not even opening the article before commenting?
- inigyou 3mo agoExtremely normal on HN.
- yazaddaruvala 3mo agoThe title and intro are badly worded. The conclusion is “you should do MRIs it is equivalently beneficial as all of ___ are bad for you”
- greenpizza13 3mo agoClick the link.
- happytoexplain 3mo agoTry not to respond like this on HN. Better to not respond at all, if this feeling strikes you.
- happytoexplain 3mo agoThe 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).