Did they add the site's tagline after most of these HN comments were made? It clearly reads, "Help to make sense of the Daily Mail's ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it," which makes it pretty obvious that they're poking fun. Everyone here seems to be reacting as if this site is claiming to be a reputable source of information about cancer-causing materials.
Sure, The Daily Mail, just like any other mainstream news source creates sensationalist headlines to shock you into reading. That doesn't make the studies cited any less accurate. Nor should it prevent us from having an on-topic conversation about something more in-depth.
No, applying statistical methods to this instance is unreasonable. Observing that selection bias skews the probabilities involved is perfectly reasonable, and indeed almost necessary to rational discussion.
EDIT: Oops... looks like acangiano beat me to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1495362
We even both used the term "tagline," which is kind of interesting, since it could just easily have been called a "subtitle" or something.