From the article:
"Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform."
As you might notice, that's far too long for a title. Since there are char limits on titles, its up to us to create one. I read the above as "Radiation is the same or similar to other things in the same category, such as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform".
No need to police this.
The average reader here is smart enough to read that headline, notice that part of it is quoted, and infer that the article states that some health authority has recently said that cell phone signals are about as dangerous as lead, etc.
The average reader is also more than smart enough to discern that the article is not, in fact, stating that cell phone radiation is the exact same thing as, say, lead. It's a bit ludicrous to even think that folks would assume this.
That said, I also prefer original headlines, as a rule.
They would be inferring the wrong thing if they did that. When someone thinks of the dangers of lead, they think of lead poisoning, not lead as carcinogenic. The dangers of exhaust, asphyxiation not as a carcinogen. Chloroform? Kidneys and liver damage from too high a dose, not cancer.