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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sterilize iPhone 3gs???
- Thread starter wayland1985
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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 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!
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.
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..
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.
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.
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. 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".
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. 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.
You got me there! I must have been thinking about all of those lungs affected by swine flu! LOLAnd, incidentally, I think the word you were looking for is "plural".
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.)
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:
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
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.
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 says essentially the same thing, and so does the online Etymology Dictionary (they really do... click the links!). So does wiktionary.org and every other online or printed source I've looked at.
A Google search of "mutable virus" returns 3,670 results, including many university, government and journal web sites, where a similar search for "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.
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.
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.
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....