Must be this: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatricLancet http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatri... http://www.t

Must be this: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatricLancet http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatri... http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960815-0/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... Note the large difference in presentation. NCI: "...a small increased risk of leukemia and brain tumors..." "...The researchers emphasize... the benefits of clinically appropriate CT scans should outweigh future cancer risks" NY Times: "...three times more likely to develop leukemia and brain cancer" "...distressingly little evidence of better health outcomes" It's some sort of golden rule of sensationalism: if the risk is minuscule, report it as a large multiplier over a tiny baseline. (Or possibly, an absolute incidence count out of a gigantically large population. NYT, thoughtfully, did both).