Sterilize iPhone 3gs???

[wayland1985]

Here's one for ya:

How do you sterilize a 3GS??? I used to use alcohol swabs for my iPhone (1st gen) without issue, but the oleophobic screen has me nervous.


Basically, I somehow contracted strep throat (Likely due to my rotation on an ID floor at a local hospital), and I want to sterilize my phone...so I don't get it again!


As a matter of fact, I'd like to sterilize it a few times a day...


Ideas???:confused:

[pvmacguy]

Use alcohol wipes or on a paper towel and it'll be fine. I do it to mine all the time.

[wayland1985]

Use alcohol wipes or on a paper towel and it'll be fine. I do it to mine all the time.

With no ill-effect to the screen???

[tpm1999]

There is a difference between cleaning and sterilizing. A person who works at a hospital should know that these words are not interchangeable.

To sterile, I suggest either an Autoclave or a high dose of radiation. Both of which would break your iPhone.

[wayland1985]

There is a difference between cleaning and sterilizing. A person who works at a hospital should know that these words are not interchangeable.

To sterile, I suggest either an Autoclave or a high dose of radiation. Both of which would break your iPhone.


Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to get too technical.

I'm looking for the best way to CLEAN my iPhone, without doing damage to it (especially the oleophobic screen), and to prevent the spread of bugs (again, using a simplistic term).

[cababah]

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to get too technical.

I'm looking for the best way to CLEAN my iPhone, without doing damage to it (especially the oleophobic screen), and to prevent the spread of bugs (again, using a simplistic term).

What is the correlation between a dirty iPhone and bugs (software or real bugs)? Only thing I can think of is getting sticky stuff or food on your phone and leaving it around overnight to find ants crawling on it. Did you mean to prevent the spread of germs? Sorry, I am confused :confused:

[wayland1985]

What is the correlation between a dirty iPhone and bugs (software or real bugs)? Only thing I can think of is getting sticky stuff or food on your phone and leaving it around overnight to find ants crawling on it. Did you mean to prevent the spread of germs? Sorry, I am confused :confused:

I'm really striking out today I guess. :o



I'm talking about germs. I'm working in an Infectious disease department at a local hospital and I'm occasionally using my phone for some reference software. I also somehow contracted a strep throat (I'm assuming because of where I've been working).

Basically I want my phone clean. I'm afraid to use certain chemicals like alcohol because of the oleophobic screen. Knowing other doctors/nurses/etc. are on this forum, I was curious to see how they may clean their devices.

[Mischka07]

What is the correlation between a dirty iPhone and bugs (software or real bugs)? Only thing I can think of is getting sticky stuff or food on your phone and leaving it around overnight to find ants crawling on it. Did you mean to prevent the spread of germs? Sorry, I am confused :confused:

He means germs. The hospital is an INCREDIBLY dirty place. My wife the nurse doesn't take her phone into the hospital specifically because of how dirty the place is.

[jmann]

So I thought when you get sick with a strain of virus like the strep throat kind, you will be immune to it after getting over the sickness? So that means to you it doesn't really matter if the germ is on the phone, but it is sort of a courtesy to clean it in case someone else touches it. :)

[JKColo22]

I use a little alcohol on a cotton ball on mine. Works fine. Oleophobic screen doesn't seem to mind, just buff out the streaks with a t-shirt afterwards. Good luck. Sorry everyone else seems to be so off topic... lol.

Edit: After a little more research, even water can take off the screen coating... Apple recommends only using a dry cloth, compared to the 3G where they recommended a moist cloth. Personally, I'm much more concerned about hygiene then whether or not my phone shows fingerprints. So far though have not noticed any difference. It certainly isn't enough to void your warranty, assuming you keep the alcohol from dripping into the phone. Just my 2c.

[daflake]

Put a screen protector on and then you can use what you like. ;) I clean mine with Lysol wipes from time to time.

[sandman42]

So I thought when you get sick with a strain of virus like the strep throat kind, you will be immune to it after getting over the sickness? So that means to you it doesn't really matter if the germ is on the phone, but it is sort of a courtesy to clean it in case someone else touches it. :)

Strep throat is not viral, it's bacterial. You can catch it over and over. Even with virii, the ones that are highly mutable are re-catchable, like the cold, for instance.

[wayland1985]

Thanks guys for the help.... I guess I'll try the alcohol...


@jmann, sandman42 sums it up pretty well. I've had strep before (as a teenager), so it's not impossible to get it again. Like sandman says, these infectious bugs (not to be confused with software bugs :D) mutate and change all the time, so it's always possible to be reinfected.

[jmann]

Strep throat is not viral, it's bacterial. You can catch it over and over. Even with virii, the ones that are highly mutable are re-catchable, like the cold, for instance.

Yeah, that's what I thought. That's why I don't bother cleaning my personal things too much when I'm sick, because I know that I can't catch that same cold again until a new one comes around. :)

[wayland1985]

Yeah, that's what I thought. That's why I don't bother cleaning my personal things too much when I'm sick, because I know that I can't catch that same cold again until a new one comes around. :)

Remind me never to have dinner at your place :D

[hsotnicam8002]

Put a screen protector on and then you can use what you like. ;) I clean mine with Lysol wipes from time to time.
But the screen protector will pick up fingerprints as it covers the oleophobic coating? I hate these protector things for anything. Apple and other manufacturers design beautiful products and then people package them in coatings and cases so they can't be seen. I used to use cases for my phones until a few years ago. Then I realized that I trade-in or trade-up so frequently (at the longest one year) and the trade in values don't seem to depend on the quality (unless very damaged). So I stopped using them. But I do use car mats on top of the carpets in my car! LOL!

[daflake]

But the screen protector will pick up fingerprints as it covers the oleophobic coating? I hate these protector things for anything. Apple and other manufacturers design beautiful products and then people package them in coatings and cases so they can't be seen. I used to use cases for my phones until a few years ago. Then I realized that I trade-in or trade-up so frequently (at the longest one year) and the trade in values don't seem to depend on the quality (unless very damaged). So I stopped using them. But I do use car mats on top of the carpets in my car! LOL!

Yes, but the screen protector can be cleaned without worry of damage to the screen. As for covering it, well it has protected my glass from scratch after my keys hit it so it is worth it to me. I don't buy a phone for looks but rather functionality, they are to fragile and portable to keep "pretty".

[hsotnicam8002]

Strep throat is not viral, it's bacterial. You can catch it over and over. Even with virii, the ones that are highly mutable are re-catchable, like the cold, for instance.If we're getting picky over terminology, then the pleural of virus is viruses. And they mutate not mute, so it should be mutatable. And the cold is not a virus, but a condition called Acute viral rhinopharyngitis or acute coryza. The virus causing the common cold is a serotype of rhinovirus (about 100 known serotypes), a type of picornavirus.

Although I commented on the use of screen protectors above as circumventing the beneficial value of the oleophobic coating, the protector should allow the use of alcohol wipes, that are very effective in decontaminating surfaces. Although sterilization implies that the item would be absolutely free on microbes after treatment, it is unlikely without harsher or longwinded treatments. But for the purposes of very effectively reducing the level of microbes (many viruses and bacteria, and other types) alcohol wipes are cheap, convenient and beneficial.

So, spoil the look of your iphone by using a screen protector, but thereby make it "sterilizable" with the use of alcohol wipes. Phones, like many items, become contaminated through droplets breathed and spluttered out and from fingers. So I recommend cleaning them (and importantly, computer keyboards) on a daily basis, especially if used within a clinical or other area where pathogens might be found at a higher than ambient level.

I have been a professional microbiologist for almost 30 years and an iPhone user for about 6 months. Watch out for the ordinary every day doctors though as they know very little about microbiology (though they know how to treat infections) as shown by the ongoing issues with hospital acquired infections! LOL!

[hsotnicam8002]

... I don't buy a phone for looks but rather functionality ...Fair enough, but I think most people choose Apple for both looks and functionality. Actually, having thought more about it, most people probably choose the iPhone for its looks.

[wayland1985]

I have been a professional microbiologist for almost 30 years and an iPhone user for about 6 months. Watch out for the ordinary every day doctors though as they know very little about microbiology (though they know how to treat infections) as shown by the ongoing issues with hospital acquired infections! LOL!

Hahahaha. True true. But you have to give credit to those doctors, having to deal with tons of other problems!


But it looks like you're the man I should be talking to now. Alcohol swabs (or in my case, alcohol soaked cotton balls) to the oleophobic screen: Yes or no???

And does the type of alcohol used have any affect on the coating (Isopropyl vs ethyl, 70 vs 91%, etc)

[daflake]

Fair enough, but I think most people choose Apple for both looks and functionality. Actually, having thought more about it, most people probably choose the iPhone for its looks.

Who cares... I think the Iphone is rather bland looking compared to other phones. It is the functionality and the seamless integration that made me go for it. Most of the adults that I talk to tend to agree.

[hsotnicam8002]

Alcohol swabs (or in my case, alcohol soaked cotton balls) to the oleophobic screen: Yes or no???I don't know enough about the actual coating used so I can't advise on whether to use alcohol directly on the 3GS coating. To be safe I would prefer to suggest using a protective film.
And does the type of alcohol used have any affect on the coating (Isopropyl vs ethyl, 70 vs 91%, etc)I don't imagine that the common alcohols used in swabs and other media would have very different effects if any. But again I can't comment on the actual reactivity or solubility of the oleophobic coating without having specific details. I am intrigued by the coating and its projected resistance to wear during a typical product lifetime. There are many types of surface coatings that can be used to be both hydrophobic and lipophobic. Some of these can be very resistant to wear and also chemically inert (within reason; for example would you subject the coating to concentrated acid exposure? - I doubt this is relevant to the typical iPhone user). I imagine that Apple have used a very resistant product, but they do have to consider cost so who knows? Give me me chemical composition of the coating and I will comment on the reactivity.

[pvmacguy]

With no ill-effect to the screen???

Yes with no ill-effect to the screen. Now this thread is back on topic lol!

[Daiden]

Edit: After a little more research, even water can take off the screen coating... Apple recommends only using a dry cloth, compared to the 3G where they recommended a moist cloth. Personally, I'm much more concerned about hygiene then whether or not my phone shows fingerprints. So far though have not noticed any difference. It certainly isn't enough to void your warranty, assuming you keep the alcohol from dripping into the phone. Just my 2c.

I hope they don't use that screen coating on the next version of the iPhone... The only reason I haven't gotten a 3GS is because I don't want to eventually rub off a line on my screen (I'm looking at you, "Slide To Unlock").

[Daiden]

Who cares... I think the Iphone is rather bland looking compared to other phones. It is the functionality and the seamless integration that made me go for it. Most of the adults that I talk to tend to agree.

For me it was the, well, power. I've always used pretty terrible "smart phones" in the past, and they have really lacked a lot of features. When I saw what the iPhone could do, I had to get one. Now, unfortunately, I could never go back to using another phone. I'm stuck with AT&T (for now) and Apple's overpriced hardware.

[EatMyApple]

Hahahaha. True true. But you have to give credit to those doctors, having to deal with tons of other problems!


But it looks like you're the man I should be talking to now. Alcohol swabs (or in my case, alcohol soaked cotton balls) to the oleophobic screen: Yes or no???

And does the type of alcohol used have any affect on the coating (Isopropyl vs ethyl, 70 vs 91%, etc)

Another microbiologist here, not 30 years experience, but about 7 under my belt. I have used 95% ethyl alcohol on my phone and have seen no damage to the 3GS screen. Still keeps the smears away just fine.

[SRLMJ23]

Hey guys, I am a 3rd year medical resident and I use either alcohol on a cotton ball or Lysol wipes and I have had no problem with the oleophobic screen coating. Also, when I clean my phone I wear Latex gloves because if you think about it, without the gloves you really arent cleaning the whole phone because your hands have germs on them so you can sterilize your phone and then re-transfer bacteria onto the phone.

I also wash my hands ALOT, obviously part of hospital protocol, and I also carry around hand sanitizer.

The only chemical I would suggest not using is Clorox wipes...had a buddy who decided to try that...stripped the coating right off the screen.

Good luck people, with H1N1 spreading rapidly it's important to wash your hands alot throughout the day and sterilize your keyboards and other technology you use.

[EatMyApple]

Hey guys, I am a 3rd year medical resident and I use either alcohol on a cotton ball or Lysol wipes and I have had no problem with the oleophobic screen coating. Also, when I clean my phone I wear Latex gloves because if you think about it, without the gloves you really arent cleaning the whole phone because your hands have germs on them so you can sterilize your phone and then re-transfer bacteria onto the phone.

I also wash my hands ALOT, obviously part of hospital protocol, and I also carry around hand sanitizer.

The only chemical I would suggest not using is Clorox wipes...had a buddy who decided to try that...stripped the coating right off the screen.

Good luck people, with H1N1 spreading rapidly it's important to wash your hands alot throughout the day and sterilize your keyboards and other technology you use.

No kidding about the H1N1 speading - its starting to pick up in Texas, especially in Lubbock. I am finishing my post-doc research after my Ph.D./M.D. I did some on side experimentation and found that Clorox is the one of the only easily accessible products that has ANY % EFFECTIVE against H1N1. So its a bummer that is ruins the iPhone 3GS screen coating. Good thing I never tried it, just stuck with the 95% Et-OH. The Purell Hand gel and similar products had NO effect on H1N1 (no real surprise there as its worthless against most viruses) but also no effect to clinical and lab strains of S. aureus or P. aeruginosa. I only tried those bacterial strains as they were current in my biofilms lab.

Good thing the gels that hospitals use is different/stronger that the crap you buy locally. One good thing of the Purell-like gels is that you get a nice good film on your hands perfect for growing more colonies! :) It could be used as a different 'agar' LOL!

[wackymacky]

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to get too technical.

I'm looking for the best way to CLEAN my iPhone, without doing damage to it (especially the oleophobic screen), and to prevent the spread of bugs (again, using a simplistic term).


Umm, not too sure why though you want to do this. How many people using your phone?

Alcohol swabs usl contain 70% isopropyl alcohol, which will kill aprox 90% of bacteria (and denature a lot of virus). This is as long as you leave it to dry rather than wiping dry once applied.

swaps that also contain some Chlorhexidine work a bit better, not sure if it is safe on the 3Gs screen, though it is used on synthetic surfaces such as contact lenses.

But in all reality the best practice is cleaning your hands.

[wackymacky]

Hey guys, I am a 3rd year medical resident and I use either alcohol on a cotton ball or Lysol wipes and I have had no problem with the oleophobic screen coating. Also, when I clean my phone I wear Latex gloves because if you think about it, without the gloves you really arent cleaning the whole phone because your hands have germs on them so you can sterilize your phone and then re-transfer bacteria onto the phone.

I also wash my hands ALOT, obviously part of hospital protocol, and I also carry around hand sanitizer.

The only chemical I would suggest not using is Clorox wipes...had a buddy who decided to try that...stripped the coating right off the screen.

Good luck people, with H1N1 spreading rapidly it's important to wash your hands alot throughout the day and sterilize your keyboards and other technology you use.


I hate to bost, but as a person who has had H1N1 (confirmed serologically) it wasnt that bad--- I just felt like a bad cold. In NZ there are dozens of more people dying of normal every day flu..

[eawmp1]

1) Don't share your phone (unless you would kiss that person)
2) Wash hands before handling your phone/bringing it up to your face
3) Don't put your phone down on a potentially contaminated surface

This way you won't even have to take extraordinary cleaning measures for your phone.

It's not how often you wash your hands; it's when you wash your hands. Never touch your face in a patient care setting (or any setting for that matter) without washing hands right before. Cough/sneeze into your elbow.

[sandman42]

If we're getting picky over terminology, then the pleural of virus is viruses. And they mutate not mute, so it should be mutatable. And the cold is not a virus, but a condition called Acute viral rhinopharyngitis or acute coryza. The virus causing the common cold is a serotype of rhinovirus (about 100 known serotypes), a type of picornavirus.

You're absolutely right about "viruses". I should know better. I wasn't trying to be picky about terminology though -- you undoubtedly know better than most that there's a big difference, from an immunological point of view, between viral and bacterial infections, and the post I was replying to was certainly confusing the two.

I stand by "mutable". I invite you to look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutable). It means prone to changing, and that's exactly what I meant. I've tried looking up "mutatable", and all I get in return is "did you mean 'mutable'?".

I would say that pointing out that a cold is not a virus is being pretty pedantic, though. Ok, a cold is caused by a virus, and it's a viral infection, but it's not, in itself, a virus. All I was trying to do was emphasize that a cold is viral. Geez.

And, incidentally, I think the word you were looking for is "plural". :)

[EatMyApple]

You're absolutely right about "viruses". I should know better. I wasn't trying to be picky about terminology though -- you undoubtedly know better than most that there's a big difference, from an immunological point of view, between viral and bacterial infections, and the post I was replying to was certainly confusing the two.

I stand by "mutable". I invite you to look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutable). It means prone to changing, and that's exactly what I meant. I've tried looking up "mutatable", and all I get in return is "did you mean 'mutable'?".

I would say that pointing out that a cold is not a virus is being pretty pedantic, though. Ok, a cold is caused by a virus, and it's a viral infection, but it's not, in itself, a virus. All I was trying to do was emphasize that a cold is viral. Geez.

And, incidentally, I think the word you were looking for is "plural". :)

Actually, mutable is INCORRECT to use in a science (biology, microbiology, chemistry, ect.) sentence or standpoint for that matter.

Just like every year or so when Merriam-Webster adds new words to the dictionary, the science world has their own 'meeting' to discuss similar business. This kind of stuff is usually crammed in the back pages near the ads in science publications.

The mutable versus mutatable was brought up and MUTATABLE was deemed the proper, correct term to use. In my past published papers, they were all reviewed by numerous panels and approved for publishing with 'mutatable' being used. I suppose its just a picky of the science community.

Hell, they even brought up if 'Prions' should be pronounced PRIons or PREons.

Mutable is still a correct term, but when referring to bacteria or virii, err, I mean viruses - mutatable is proper.

[hsotnicam8002]

And, incidentally, I think the word you were looking for is "plural". :)You got me there! I must have been thinking about all of those lungs affected by swine flu! LOL

[hsotnicam8002]

Actually, mutable is INCORRECT to use in a science (biology, microbiology, chemistry, ect.) sentence or standpoint for that matter.

Just like every year or so when Merriam-Webster adds new words to the dictionary, the science world has their own 'meeting' to discuss similar business. This kind of stuff is usually crammed in the back pages near the ads in science publications.

The mutable versus mutatable was brought up and MUTATABLE was deemed the proper, correct term to use. In my past published papers, they were all reviewed by numerous panels and approved for publishing with 'mutatable' being used. I suppose its just a picky of the science community.

Hell, they even brought up if 'Prions' should be pronounced PRIons or PREons.

Mutable is still a correct term, but when referring to bacteria or virii, err, I mean viruses - mutatable is proper.You are right, mutable is still a correct term, but note, as a quibble, mutable means able to be muted whereas mutatable means able to be mutatated. So, in the context of mutation (a change in the DNA sequence of a gene) mutable is NOT appropriate, whether or not it is misused regularly in the literature (even by some scientists, often who are not the world's best purveyors of English, though anyone can make a mistake). As an editor on several journals and books prior to my retirement I learned that the correct terminology is absolutely essential to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, I will be muted on this topic from now on! LOL!

(Just for interest, PROteinaceous INfectious particles, became PRION rather than PROIN. The latter grates somewhat so I can see the reasoning, but it can be confusing for the uninitiated.)

[sandman42]

Actually, mutable is INCORRECT to use in a science (biology, microbiology, chemistry, ect.) sentence or standpoint for that matter.

...

The mutable versus mutatable was brought up and MUTATABLE was deemed the proper, correct term to use. In my past published papers, they were all reviewed by numerous panels and approved for publishing with 'mutatable' being used. I suppose its just a picky of the science community.

...

Mutable is still a correct term, but when referring to bacteria or virii, err, I mean viruses - mutatable is proper.

You are right, mutable is still a correct term, but note, as a quibble, mutable means able to be muted whereas mutatable means able to be mutatated. So, in the context of mutation (a change in the DNA sequence of a gene) mutable is NOT appropriate, whether or not it is misused regularly in the literature (even by some scientists, often who are not the world's best purveyors of English, though anyone can make a mistake). As an editor on several journals and books prior to my retirement I learned that the correct terminology is absolutely essential to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, I will be muted on this topic from now on! LOL!


I'll be interested to see how the language evolves. You'll have to forgive me though, I've always known the word "mutable", as a lay person, to mean "prone to changing", and the scientists I know frequently use it in the genetic context. In all the dictionaries I've looked in, none define "mutable" as "able to be muted", rather they give the "prone to changing" definition. I can accept that this is under review, and I'd love to see whatever citations someone can provide that show the evolution of the term.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, as an example:
200007

[gemz1000]

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to get too technical.

I'm looking for the best way to CLEAN my iPhone, without doing damage to it (especially the oleophobic screen), and to prevent the spread of bugs (again, using a simplistic term).

I would try those lysol wipes or chlorox wipes, wet wipes, i use them on my screen and it's just fine. Hope this helps :)

[hsotnicam8002]

I'll be interested to see how the language evolves. You'll have to forgive me though, I've always known the word "mutable", as a lay person, to mean "prone to changing", and the scientists I know frequently use it in the genetic context. In all the dictionaries I've looked in, none define "mutable" as "able to be muted", rather they give the "prone to changing" definition. I can accept that this is under review, and I'd love to see whatever citations someone can provide that show the evolution of the term.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, as an example:
200007Why would you assume the American Heritage Dictionary knows about Latin origins? Let me refer you to the website below and you can work out whether the details you gave in the reference above are correct or incorrect. I studied Latin at school but I have lost much of it over the years. Did the American Heritage Dictionary editors study Latin and thus provide the correct words from the origins? Else, how would you discriminate the term for one who might be made dumb (mutable)?

This really is my last post on the terminology as the subject of the topic has been mutated sufficiently, I feel. ;)

[sandman42]

Why would you assume the American Heritage Dictionary knows about Latin origins? Let me refer you to the website below and you can work out whether the details you gave in the reference above are correct or incorrect. I studied Latin at school but I have lost much of it over the years. Did the American Heritage Dictionary editors study Latin and thus provide the correct words from the origins? Else, how would you discriminate the term for one who might be made dumb (mutable)?

This really is my last post on the terminology as the subject of the topic has been mutated sufficiently, I feel. ;)

Did you mean to include a link to a web site? Also, you're kidding, right? Are you seriously saying you have more faith in your self-proclaimed hazy latin recollections than in the etymology published in a reputable dictionary? Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutable) says essentially the same thing, and so does the online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=mutable&searchmode=none) (they really do... click the links!). So does wiktionary.org (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutable) and every other online or printed source I've looked at.

A Google search of "mutable virus" (http://www.google.com/search?q="mutable+virus") returns 3,670 results, including many university, government and journal web sites, where a similar search for "mutatable virus" (http://www.google.com/search?q="mutatable+virus") returns only 207 results.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or provocative. I would genuinely like to see a citation from a reputable source that documents the debate over "mutable" vs. "mutatable". I don't doubt there is such a debate. But saying that "mutable" doesn't mean what real dictionaries and many other publications say it means seems bizarre to me. I don't know what word is supposed to mean "able to be muted", but I do think it's a good question.

[eawmp1]

Wow - the same level of OCD that led to the OP's post extends to or neighborhood linguists.

[EatMyApple]

Did you mean to include a link to a web site? Also, you're kidding, right? Are you seriously saying you have more faith in your self-proclaimed hazy latin recollections than in the etymology published in a reputable dictionary? Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutable) says essentially the same thing, and so does the online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=mutable&searchmode=none) (they really do... click the links!). So does wiktionary.org (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutable) and every other online or printed source I've looked at.

A Google search of "mutable virus" (http://www.google.com/search?q="mutable+virus") returns 3,670 results, including many university, government and journal web sites, where a similar search for "mutatable virus" (http://www.google.com/search?q="mutatable+virus") returns only 207 results.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or provocative. I would genuinely like to see a citation from a reputable source that documents the debate over "mutable" vs. "mutatable". I don't doubt there is such a debate. But saying that "mutable" doesn't mean what real dictionaries and many other publications say it means seems bizarre to me. I don't know what word is supposed to mean "able to be muted", but I do think it's a good question.

I would also agree with the use of Latin over the Merriam-Webster, but that is another topic in which this thread does not deserve. The MW is a reputable dictionary but it does not overlap into the science world. Yes, proper grammar and sentence structure are a must, but there is an allowed margin of variety so to speak to allow sentence flow in what are your, the author's words. Therefore, how you say something is correct, as it is your research, your meaning, your paper, ect.

I do see your points and every one of them has made perfect sense. However, it is no surprise that scientists are weird and slightly off LOL. Just look at the way they name species - it makes sense, and then they don't at the same time. They can be obvious or completely out of left field. Science is irony - that's what it makes perfect sense (maybe just to us sometimes).

Just the fact that you are respectfully arguing this is point enough. What makes sense to the non-scientistic doesn't always make sense to the scientist, and vise versa.

But, you are right. Mutable is a valid word, however; it's implications in microbiology are technically wrong (not English language wrong....) but still used even so. While mutable is used in publications doesn't make it right or wrong, and that is the same with mutatable. I wish I could remember which journal and volume so that I could copy the mention of this science-world changing event. I only remembered it cause I probably laughed at its stupidity that it was even brought up. But again, scientists are weird and thorough hence the vote.

Putting this into a timeline, most recent publications that have been using 'mutable genes' are papers over RNA, which is BOOMING right now. Anyway, the 'mutable' is being used in reference to the silencing or the turning off of genes or whole combating viruses - not a mutation. During this same timeframe, I have also seen mutatable, obviously referring to mutations in a virus, codon, gene, ect. Both are correct. And most likely, if you were to switch the terms, I doubt any scientist would shake their fist or even immediately catch the dual meaning flop. They would read over it and understand the abstract of the paper with either term being used.

The point is that the use or 'mutable' or 'mutatable' when used will not the meaning of the paper. I guess you can determine that both are accurate...but only one is correct. But it's up to the author to determine which one is correct. They are not worried about the reader caring, but if the reader digs their research.

[wayland1985]

Wow - the same level of OCD that led to the OP's post extends to or neighborhood linguists.

Hey man, it's not OCD when you're home sick for a week! Prevention...

[daflake]

Hey man, it's not OCD when you're home sick for a week! Prevention...


I have to agree here... Most people would be shocked to find that feces is the number one contaminant that you can find on a phone. This is a device that you press to your face!

So, if you are sick, a little cleaning is the right thing to do to ensure that you won't get sick again or spread it to someone else.

As I mentioned before, I use the Lysol wipes and they seem to do well but I have a screen protector on and I don't soak the device.

[aristotle]

At the OP, it is OCD.

Did you ever stop to wonder why people who supposedly follow proper protocols get sick so often? Maybe it is because you are using anti-bacterial soap and disinfectants on yourself so often that your immune system is in such a weakened state.

Not only does use of anti-bacterial soap weaken your immune system but it also contributes to the chance of a super bug which is drug and antibacterial resistant.

If the medical community would use common sense instead, you would use soap less often and use gloves instead. When prepping for surgery, a nice scrub with regular soap and gloves should be sufficient.

I would not be surprised if you got sick because you forgot to wash your hands before eating or preparing food.

[wayland1985]

At the OP, it is OCD.

Did you ever stop to wonder why people who supposedly follow proper protocols get sick so often? Maybe it is because you are using anti-bacterial soap and disinfectants on yourself so often that your immune system is in such a weakened state.

Not only does use of anti-bacterial soap weaken your immune system but it also contributes to the chance of a super bug which is drug and antibacterial resistant.

If the medical community would use common sense instead, you would use soap less often and use gloves instead. When prepping for surgery, a nice scrub with regular soap and gloves should be sufficient.

I would not be surprised if you got sick because you forgot to wash your hands before eating or preparing food.

Come into my hospital for a day or two and don't wash your hands... See what you walk out with.


And the next time you have a doctor performing surgery on you without washing their hands before applying gloves, see how well you heal.


The fact is that all of the antiseptic techniques used in a hospital are evidence based. Studies have shown there's a reason behind doing things the way we do.


These bugs aren't your normal colds..... We're dealing with bacteria and viruses that wreak havoc if caught. If you want to eat your ham sandwich without washing your hands after a visit to the patient with the explosive diarrhea, flesh eating bacteria, or temperature of 105*, be my guest.



It's not OCD. Common Sense says to wash your stuff....