I made this - thanks for voting it to the top of HN!
In case anyone's still unclear, it is a tongue-in-cheek dig at the Daily Mail's reporting of cancer stories. It's most definitely not a medical resource. I could probably have done the same with almost any newspaper, but the Daily Mail is uniquely deserving of opprobrium.
I wrote the whole thing one Sunday night and tweeted about it at midnight; by midday the next day, I had successfully crowdsourced the analysis of all the articles. If I'd known how successful it would be, I'd have written a better, more detailed crowdsourcing process.
Sure, you can take a poke at this or that not entirely proven cancer association. But your "tongue-in-cheek" site definitely facilitates the devaluing of the many and subtle cancer associations that have been demonstrated - it is not a constructive contribution to the discussion on this subject. For example, while the case automobile pollution causing cancer might not be air, do you have proof that it doesn't cause cancer? Having "incorrect" as the alternative for each assertion on the Daily Mail is seriously problematic.
In case anyone's still unclear, it is a tongue-in-cheek dig at the Daily Mail's reporting of cancer stories. It's most definitely not a medical resource. I could probably have done the same with almost any newspaper, but the Daily Mail is uniquely deserving of opprobrium.
You can get the code and a database export on GitHub if you're interested: http://github.com/threedaymonk/kill-or-cure
I wrote the whole thing one Sunday night and tweeted about it at midnight; by midday the next day, I had successfully crowdsourced the analysis of all the articles. If I'd known how successful it would be, I'd have written a better, more detailed crowdsourcing process.