## 1217: "Cells"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

thesingingaccountant
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:18 pm UTC
Location: My trusty tablet, most likely

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

itruelso wrote:Reading comic 1217 reminded me of an old question I had, how many times have injuries inflicted by guns cures cancer?

In the United States in 2008 there were 78,622 non-fatal firearm injuries (1). The total population of the United States that year was 304,059,724 according to the US census burrow, so the rate of non-fatal firearm use was 78,622/304,059,724.

There are 1,437,180 new cases of cancer diagnosed in 2008 (2) making the rate of new cancers 1,437,180/304,059,724.

That means the rate of new cancers plus getting shot is (78,622/304,059,724)*(1,437,180/304,059,724) = 0.00000122218.

So if cancer is randomly associated with firearm injury 0.00000122218*304,059,724 = 371.6 people both developed cancer and suffered non fatal fire arm injury.

If we use the assumption that the average bullet damages 1 pound of flesh then there is a 1/177 that a bullet will remove an early microscopic cancer.

So in 2008 it can be estimated that 1/177 * 371.6 = 2.01 people were cured of cancer in 2008 by gunshot wound.

... I think I might be in love with you.
Never trust a psychic who has to reschedule.

webdude
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:11 am UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

itruelso wrote:Reading comic 1217 reminded me of an old question I had, how many times have injuries inflicted by guns cures cancer?

In the United States in 2008 there were 78,622 non-fatal firearm injuries (1). The total population of the United States that year was 304,059,724 according to the US census burrow, so the rate of non-fatal firearm use was 78,622/304,059,724.

There are 1,437,180 new cases of cancer diagnosed in 2008 (2) making the rate of new cancers 1,437,180/304,059,724.

That means the rate of new cancers plus getting shot is (78,622/304,059,724)*(1,437,180/304,059,724) = 0.00000122218.

So if cancer is randomly associated with firearm injury 0.00000122218*304,059,724 = 371.6 people both developed cancer and suffered non fatal fire arm injury.

If we use the assumption that the average bullet damages 1 pound of flesh then there is a 1/177 that a bullet will remove an early microscopic cancer.

So in 2008 it can be estimated that 1/177 * 371.6 = 2.01 people were cured of cancer in 2008 by gunshot wound.

Damn funny! Reminds me of a great pair of books called "How to Lie with Statistics" and its followup. Of course, it's more awesome when a whacky statistical analysis is proven to be correct. Good luck with that in this case!

RE: Bleach. Hell, if you're going to use bleach, why not up the ante and use phenol?

"Magic bullet." Damn, that was one of the two bad puns that went in and out of my brain because I was in a hurry. I think I mentioned therapists taking a scattershot or shotgun approach, or sometimes a shot in the dark, while their poor patients have to bite the bullet. Some therapists seem to shoot only blanks when they're not shooting the breeze or the bull. Meanwhile, the nurses come in with trays of hypos and shoot the hell out of the patient, then draw blood to see the results. Some physicians always seem to be under the gun, so they jump it; in such situations, patients, or their representatives, must stick to their guns to ensure reasonable treatment.
I know cancer is bad, but in the short term, it's awful when someone shoots puns from the hip!

eviloatmeal
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Guns don't kill cancer, people kill cancer, and monkeys do too (if they've got a gun).
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***

Riddles are abound tonight

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

mishka wrote:The cells wouldn't die however. Most of the cells would simply be sprayed outward.

Like a hot air hand dryer!

AlexTheSeal
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 am UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

uaswell wrote:soapy water

bitwiseshiftleft wrote:soapy water

Ooh, you two hit one of my pet peeves right on the nerve. I started hearing "soapy water" used in a public-health context about five years ago and immediately formed the unshakable belief that it was a careless elision of "soap and water." That is, to me, soapy water is what you rinse off of your hands when you're done washing them with soap and water. It's the latter that does the cleaning. The former, if you started with it, would be something like a kitchen-sinkful of water with a drop or two of dish soap mixed in--not enough to make any measurable difference in the water's performance as a surfactant.

Code: Select all

`10 REM WORLD'S SMALLEST ADVENTURE GAME20 PRINT "YOU ARE IN A CAVE (N, S, E, W)? ";30 INPUT A\$40 GOTO 10`

Lulled to sleep by the one-hertz chuckle of Linux logfile writes since 1997.

Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

AlexTheSeal wrote:
uaswell wrote:soapy water

bitwiseshiftleft wrote:soapy water

Ooh, you two hit one of my pet peeves right on the nerve. I started hearing "soapy water" used in a public-health context about five years ago and immediately formed the unshakable belief that it was a careless elision of "soap and water." That is, to me, soapy water is what you rinse off of your hands when you're done washing them with soap and water. It's the latter that does the cleaning. The former, if you started with it, would be something like a kitchen-sinkful of water with a drop or two of dish soap mixed in--not enough to make any measurable difference in the water's performance as a surfactant.

What about those bottles that are full of water mixed with soap, and have a pump that pumps it out as a foam?
Is the content of those soapy water?
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Nope. Wet soap. = )
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Copper Bezel wrote:Nope. Wet soap. = )

I would say that wet soap would mean soap with water on it, not soap mixed with water.
(e.g. if there was a bar of soap that had water on top of it from use.)

the free dictionary defines soapy as "Consisting of or containing soap". and goes on to add. ": soapy water".

I would say that water and soap mixed would either consist of or contain soap? (or somewhere between consist of and contain, if not either individually)

?
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

I'm seriously just playing. BumpyCaps' argument doesn't hold much water for me, soapy or otherwise. (The soap reduces surface tension, so it'd need to be an even more airtight argument. But I guess we don't need to talk about holding air on top of everything, despite the soap bubbles. = ) ) I do agree with him that a person washes with "soap and water", and someone who introduced "soapy water" without context would seem to be referring to the leftovers. As you point out, they're normally not mixed to start with.

The foam that comes out of those dispensers is a foam. If we say "water," we're normally implying a liquid state, not a foam. And the actual amount of surfactant provided isn't all that important. We're saying soap when these things are generally detergents, anyway, and some contain water. So "soap" that's pre-mixed with water is really just a particular kind of "soap," isn't it?
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Dr. Diaphanous
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:38 pm UTC
Location: UK

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Copper Bezel wrote:Nope. soap. = )

soap soap soap
(soap.)

soapy "soap". "soapy".

soap soap?

That word is starting to lose any meaning in my mind

Soap soap soap soap soap.
"God works in mysterious and breathtakingly cruel ways."

orthogon
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Dr. Diaphanous wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Nope. soap. = )

soap soap soap
(soap.)

soapy "soap". "soapy".

soap soap?

That word is starting to lose any meaning in my mind

Soap soap soap soap soap.

You mean it totally just stopped seeming like a real word?

Also, Urban Dictionary has some interesting definitions of soapy.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

AlexTheSeal
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 am UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Copper Bezel wrote:I'm seriously just playing. BumpyCaps' argument doesn't hold much water for me, soapy or otherwise. (The soap reduces surface tension, so it'd need to be an even more airtight argument. But I guess we don't need to talk about holding air on top of everything, despite the soap bubbles. = ) )

Who's BumpyCaps? Are you talking about me?

I do agree with him that a person washes with "soap and water", and someone who introduced "soapy water" without context would seem to be referring to the leftovers. As you point out, they're normally not mixed to start with.

'Zackly.

The foam that comes out of those dispensers is a foam. If we say "water," we're normally implying a liquid state, not a foam. And the actual amount of surfactant provided isn't all that important. We're saying soap when these things are generally detergents, anyway, and some contain water. So "soap" that's pre-mixed with water is really just a particular kind of "soap," isn't it?

Sounds isomorphic to the paradox of the heap. (Just because there's a little bit of soap in the water doesn't make the whole thing soap. You have to draw the line somewhere).

Code: Select all

`10 REM WORLD'S SMALLEST ADVENTURE GAME20 PRINT "YOU ARE IN A CAVE (N, S, E, W)? ";30 INPUT A\$40 GOTO 10`

Lulled to sleep by the one-hertz chuckle of Linux logfile writes since 1997.

Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

AlexTheSeal wrote:Who's BumpyCaps? Are you talking about me?

Yeah, just being weird. It struck me as odd that "The" is capitalized, and I ran with it.

For some reason, I was imagining a 50% concentration instead of a 25% concentration of soap in the dispenser, and that made it seem less silly to call the mix "soap." It'd certainly be "soapy water" while in the bottle, at least.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Dr. Diaphanous wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Nope. soap. = )

soap soap soap
(soap.)

soapy "soap". "soapy".

soap soap?

That word is starting to lose any meaning in my mind

Soap soap soap soap soap.

Are you singing about five bars?
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

AlexTheSeal
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 am UTC

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

bmonk wrote:
Dr. Diaphanous wrote:Soap soap soap soap soap.

Are you singing about five bars?

He's a one-man barbershop quintet.

Code: Select all

`10 REM WORLD'S SMALLEST ADVENTURE GAME20 PRINT "YOU ARE IN A CAVE (N, S, E, W)? ";30 INPUT A\$40 GOTO 10`

Lulled to sleep by the one-hertz chuckle of Linux logfile writes since 1997.

Case
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:30 pm UTC
Location: Edge of the World

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

So, my girlfriend, a molecular biologist, liked "Cells" so much she decided to do a live reenactment of the comics and asked me to document it and post it here.

Yes, those are real cancer cells in that Petri dish. Specifically, the K652 leukemia cells. We spared no expense. We're not commenting on the authenticity of the handgun, though. (OK, it's fake, don't worry, we didn't bring a real Beretta to a lab.)

Also, when you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a Petri dish", keep in mind: so does bleach.

Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Case wrote:So, my girlfriend, a molecular biologist, liked "Cells" so much she decided to do a live reenactment of the comics and asked me to document it and post it here.

Yes, those are real cancer cells in that Petri dish. Specifically, the K652 leukemia cells. We spared no expense. We're not commenting on the authenticity of the handgun, though. (OK, it's fake, don't worry, we didn't bring a real Beretta to a lab.)

Also, when you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a Petri dish", keep in mind: so does bleach.

The photo is so cute.
Of course, It is for Lab Personal, only.

jeeze.
People that have Cancer and their Families might need an Explanation.
Spoiler:
Remember; Many of us are Americans.
Heavily Armed and Not Too Bright.

"You shot her? Why?"

"I saw The Poster."

They had some PVC's and a dnr.

There was a formal complaint.
It was so funny. They said the dnr order might be followed.
I Laughed. We were a bunch of first responders!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

### Re: 1217: "Cells"

Iridum+light cancer treatment.

No mention of if if their compound is more likely to be absorbed by cancer cells, or how they intent to shine light on anything but skin cancers. Titles is basically chicanery: we really don't need to know where iridium comes to the earth from (for a cancer article) and the dinosaur asteroid isn't any more relevant than any other asteroid.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.