I guess that it's similar to 70 in the same way that they're equally distant from infinity as well...
Strangely, for a non-mathematician, I sometimes do get excited by numbers (or the way numbers work anyway). I suspect this is yet another deeply geeky part of my personality, as my enthusiasm is rarely matched by my fellow biologists. Example digression to follow - tune out if you're a math-phobe:
My company has a large number of actual forehead-bulging, journal-writing, mathematicians who frequently present their work to the rest of us in technical reviews, pre-conference workshops and the like. They seemed to have a preference for taking the numerical output of some of our instruments and performing a log-transformation to base e, after which they'd do algebra and statistics and stuff. I wondered about that and dropped by the Ivory Tower to ask why they always did this. It turns out that log-transformation has some very nice effects on how numbers behave (variance stabilization, additive rather than multiplicative effects of underlying factors, etc) so I started doing the same thing with some of my data.
So far, so good - nothing really to get charged up about (I'm just doing what the cool kids do with their toys).
One day I was trying to figure out a way to explain to an innumerate colleague what log-transformed values mean, and in the course of fiddling around with percentages I suddenly found that differences in natural log-scaled numbers are roughly equivalent to percent-differences on the linear scale!
Is so cool.
Also: New Mexico Whiptail lizards are all female, and reproduce parthenogenetically! <--Biologist bona fide