If breast cancer and melanomas are more likely on the left side of the body at a level that's statistically significant, that's interesting even if the proposed explanation is nonsense.
Even so, ISTM that picking through the linked article for its many flaws in reasoning would have been more interesting even than not-quite-endorsing its conclusions.
What I find interesting is the question, what motivates an influential blogger with a large audience to pass on this particular kind of factoid?
The ICCI blog has an explanation based on relevance theory and "the joy of superstition", but unfortunately (?) it involves Paul the Octopus:
...We may get pleasure from having our expectations of relevance aroused. We often indulge in this plea
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
July Part 1