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.
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.