Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Self Cleaning Mouse 204

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the hypochondriacs-rejoice dept.
mikesd81 writes "LEWIS Wire is reporting on a self-cleaning mouse that disables the survival of bacteria with an auto-disinfecting surface. From the article: 'According to a recent survey from the University of Arizona, the average desk harbors 400 times more bacteria than the average toilet seat. Despite this, office workers rarely have time to clean their desktops frequently or thoroughly enough to be effective. As a result, the presence of microbes contributes to the spread of pneumonia, the flu, pink eye and strep throat, among other extremely contagious viruses.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Self Cleaning Mouse

Comments Filter:
  • Oh no! "bacteria"! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @06:51AM (#16212645)
    What's this common dread of "bacteria"? You have to look at the big picture. 97% of bacterial species have not the slightest ability to harm us. A typical surface has millions of these critters. Most of them are your friends, as they help crowd out the really bad varieties.

    If you "disinfect" a surface, it's like clear-cutting a rain-forest. You've upset the balance, making a fresh new playground where the really baad and hardy weeds might take hold.

  • Special coating??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @06:52AM (#16212655)
    so how long will that survive on the surface? It'll have to be tough to withstand ordinary wear and tear... the contact points where my fingers hold the mouse on my desktop are already worn smooth and the mouse has only been in use for 6 months... sounds like snake-oil to me especially the nano-particle crap...
  • Useless (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @06:57AM (#16212697)
    Yes, you touch your mouse often, but it is just a tiny fraction of what you touch so this mouse is just a waste of money. OK, not a big one for a change.

    On the other hand, using such surfaces in hospital for example on doorknobs or armrests may really be helpfull.
  • Germs are good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unts (754160) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @06:59AM (#16212717) Homepage Journal
    They help keep the immune system strong. If there's nothing for it to fight off... well... it'll just get lazy. Stay dirty; exercise that immune system!
  • by montyzooooma (853414) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:05AM (#16212753)
    If the average desk harbours 400% more bacteria than the average toilet seat wouldn't it have a helluva lot to do with the relative surface area of each.
  • by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalker.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:07AM (#16212761) Journal
    Well new nano technology allows us to create surfaces that no bacteria can live on. So you don't have to worry about good OR bad bacteria, and its smart for surfaces that people often touch. Otherwise I agree.
  • Oh please! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:18AM (#16212853)
    According to a recent survey from the University of Arizona, the average desk harbors 400 times more bacteria than the average toilet seat.

    There's even more bacteria INSIDE YOU! And no, they're not only "your" bacteria. They are in fact bacteria that you ate, breathed in and so on and so on. They live and breed inside you, and defecate inside you! They also *eat* from whatever is laying around (i.e. YOU).

    Shocking? Well it better not be, since they're not going away any time soon. I'm sick of gem-counting revelations and toilet seat comparisons.

    I'm proud to say I use a regular dirty mouse and keyboard and I'm still alive and healthy. If someone is concerned he might catch something bad from a computer mouse, he wouldn't be alive to buy this product anyway.
  • bacteria or virus? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emlyncorrin (818871) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:26AM (#16212921)
    that disables the survival of bacteria with an auto-disinfecting surface.
    contributes to the spread of pneumonia, the flu, pink eye and strep throat, among other extremely contagious viruses.
    What's the point of an antibacterial if the problem is viruses?
  • by quigonn (80360) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:45AM (#16213131) Homepage
    Seriously: if the current contamination really were a problem, we would all be dead. But we aren't, and why? Because the human body has a immune system. So I bet, such a self-cleaning mouse, or even completely sterile desks deployed everywhere wouldn't have any impact on the infection rates.

    Actually, desinfecting too much actually leads to other problems. Current studies suggest that too much hygiene may be a big factor in the recent increases of allergies. Also, fighting too aggressively against any kind of etiologic agents only produces more resistant etiologic agents. A prominent example is the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a Staph.A. strain that developed antibiotic resistance and is responsible for a good share of all nosocomial infections (i.e. infections you get that you get in hospital but are otherwise unrelated to your actual treatment there).

    IANAMD (I am not an MD), but I have an education as combat medic in the Austrian Army where infectiology is a huge subject during education.
  • by Daytona955i (448665) <flynnguy24 AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @07:59AM (#16213285)
    The problem is, when you mention bacteria to the average person, they think bad things because we've learned that bad bacteria can make us sick. That's why I hate most studies that proclaim the bacteria count is such and such.

    Unfortunately, these "studies" are usually trying to convince us to buy an anti-bacterial soap, or as in this case a self cleaning mouse so they play on people's fears and doubts to make them want to buy it, ie... it's just FUD.
  • by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @08:07AM (#16213367)
    What's this common dread of "bacteria"? You have to look at the big picture. 97% of bacterial species have not the slightest ability to harm us.


    And of the other 3%, most of them we couldn't survive without and the primary way they can harm us is by dying. The human lifeform is symbiotic with a whole bunch of bacterial species, which do everything from cleaning your eyeballs to assisting with digestion. The biosphere relies on bacteria to maintain everything from soil conditions to oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

    Killing bacteria to stop infections is like chopping off people's hands to stop shootings - before they happen.
  • by Kadin2048 (468275) <`ten.yxox' `ta' `nidak.todhsals'> on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @10:40AM (#16215333) Homepage Journal
    Mobile phones are generally only used by one person; thus they're only covered with your own bacteria, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to disinfect them.

    After all, if you touch the phone to your face, and then wait a while and touch it to your face again, you didn't accomplish anything. The bacteria that were on your face are still on your face; even if you hadn't used the phone they just would have stayed there.

    Now, if you had a phone that was shared by large numbers of people, there might be a reason to disinfect it so you didn't spread things, but even then I'm not sure how dirty your face is. Your hands are probably much worse, and people still seem to shake hands without hesitation. Regular handwashing would probably be more effective at preventing the spread of disease than whether your mobile phone is oozing Lysol.

    The objects which it makes sense to make self-disinfecting are those which are used by large numbers of people, and are principally touched with their hands. The keyboards and mice of public terminals strike me as a good use, but more than that, I'd like to see the interior door-handles of public restrooms made self-disinfecting. (Or mandate that all restroom doors have to be free-swinging and open outwards, so you could just push them.)
  • by ChildeRoland (949144) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @11:13AM (#16215733)
    Except influenze is caused by a VIRUS, NOT a bacteria. How is this anti-bacterial mouse going to protect against the Flu?
  • by Goggi (2124) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @01:24PM (#16217897)
    Actually, counting cells we're not even close to being a majority in our own bodies. Some figures suggest that we have 10 times the amount of microorganisms in our intestines than the number of cells we are made up of "ourselves". For more interesting facts about why the stupid view on bacteria some likes to sell us are way over-simplified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora [wikipedia.org] (with a lengthy list of references in case you feel like making up your own mind).
  • by Doctor O (549663) on Wednesday September 27, 2006 @03:14PM (#16219921) Homepage Journal
    there's probably not any Trich on my desk. Or E coli

    Sure there is. That is, unless you never wipe your ass, which is not very probable even on Slashdot.

    Then again, I don't worry about my desk. How is my immune system supposed to work if it never gets anything for training? There is a good reason why allergies spread like an epidemic nowadays. Ask old people whether they knew anyone who was allergic, say, 40 years ago.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...