Well, whales live under the water and most mammals have fur, so perhaps they are protected from the cancer causing sun more than humans. Elephants have thick protective skin.
Plus, humans tend to be closer to carcinogens like pesticides than other animals. Those deer in scandanavia are also herbivores...
It seems like they aren't limiting their variables enough. If they really wanted to determine the correlation between size and cancer, they'd need to use different sizes of the same species. What is the control group?
The sun is a cause of cancer, but not the only or even a primary cause. The real "cause" of cancer is cell mutation, which can be triggered by sun, chemical exposure, or simply sheer random chance -- part of the thesis of this article is that, since whales have so many more cells, the "random chance" type would be more likely to happen. And one tumor is enough to kill us, so why not whales? That's the question they're asking.
Plus, humans tend to be closer to carcinogens like pesticides than other animals. Those deer in scandanavia are also herbivores...
It seems like they aren't limiting their variables enough. If they really wanted to determine the correlation between size and cancer, they'd need to use different sizes of the same species. What is the control group?