Is your iPad really a "mobile germ warehouse"?

As I have written before, there is a veritable cottage industry of papers identifying contamination of nearly every inanimate object you can think of. [For my other posts on this topic, click here.]

One of the latest involves contamination of the surfaces of electronic devices and in particular, iPads.

Without giving references, a New York Times article entitled "Cleaning the mobile germ warehouse" says, "Repeated studies show what accumulates [on device surfaces] is germy nastiness worse than what is on the bottom of your shoe." A least it's not a toilet seat comparison.

The Times cites a recent letter to the editor of the American Journal of Infection Control which states that the screens of 20 hospital-provided iPads were cultured looking for Staph aureus, Clostridium difficile, and gram-negative organisms. Three grew Staph, but neither of the other organisms was found.

They then inoculated screens with MRSA and C. diff. to test various disinfection techniques. The use of wipes containing bleach effectively decontaminated all the screens.

The Times piece launched into a long discussion of how screens should be cleaned without any mention of the problem of extrapolating what can be found on a hospital's iPad screens to what might be found on your iPad screen or whether inoculating screens with bacteria is comparable to what might be found with normal home or non-medical office use.

The senior author of the iPad screen study is quoted as saying, “That devices can be a source of disease transmission is not a subject of debate anymore." His study mentions no references to disease transmission by iPads or smart phones.

Excuse me, but I don't see what this research has to do with transmission of disease. The study did not look at disease transmission but merely colonization of surfaces. It showed that hospital-acquired organisms can occasionally be found on a small number of iPad screens in one North Dakota hospital.

I would say the topic is still quite debatable. 

iPads used in hospitals should be cleaned regularly. I have nothing against cleaning the screen of your iPad or any other device you own. If nothing else, cleaning makes it easier to see, and the device looks nicer.

What I have a problem with is the unquestioning endorsement of research like this. 

But what the hell, headlines like "mobile germ warehouse" get clicks, and that's what it's all about.

The ultimate first-world problem: Twitter is slightly different on the computer, iPad & iPhone

Each platform has some advantages and disadvantages.

The standard computers, both PC and Apple, offer the full keyboard and obviously larger screen. It is easier to grab URLs and shorten links. Computers also include all interactions, not just mentions. But retweeting by copying someone else’s tweet and commenting on it is very cumbersome. The URLs do not copy with the “http://” and even the rest of the URL is omitted unless you copy the entire tweet including name and twitter handle of the tweeter.

The iPad lets you “Retweet” and “Quote Tweet.” Quote tweet reproduces the entire tweet with the full URL. You must delete the quotation marks after the tweet if they are directly next to the URL. But on the iPad, your “Mentions” are just that, mentions in tweets. Retweets of your stuff and other interactions like new followers are not listed. The iPad allows you to write a tweet and save it for later, a feature not available on a PC. But shortening a URL is a project that takes several steps because of the clunky way the iPad copies and pastes.

The iPhone lists all interactions, just like the PC and has “Quote Tweet” just like the iPad. It also permits writing a tweet and saving it for later. This feature is in a menu displayed by clicking “Cancel” instead of “Close” as is the case on the iPad. However like the iPad, the iPhone also makes shortening a URL a big deal.

There are other differences like the way profiles are displayed and direct messages are handled.

Is there some reason why there can’t be uniformity across all the devices?

iPads approved by FAA for use by airline pilots, not passengers

As reported by The New York Times and ZDNet last week, iPads are now approved by the FAA for use by pilots. iPad flight charts replace about 35 pounds of paper charts. Another story says that the iPads, which weigh about 1.5 pounds, will save some $1.2 million worth of fuel a year.

Supposedly fearing disruption of avionics equipment, the FAA has yet to approve iPad use for passengers when the planes are below 10,000 feet. Yet if I interpret the FAA correctly, pilots, using iPads while sitting directly next to the avionics, present no threat.

This reminds me of the still on-going controversy about the use of cell phones in hospital intensive care units. Cell phones have been said to interfere with monitors and ventilators. Many hospitals still have signs prohibiting cell phone use.

Research (e.g., here, here and here) shows that cell phones do not cause clinically important interference with medical devises unless placed within a minimum of about 3 feet, although a Dutch study claimed otherwise. However, that study used certain European cell phones which emit three times the energy of American phones. It is likely that iPads and other tablets do not cause problems either.

Yes, I realize that being unable to use one’s iPad for 30 minutes of an airplane flight is not really that big a sacrifice. And I would hate to be subjected to three hours of 200 people talking on their phones in a space as confined as an airliner. But one could make the same argument as that use regarding the replacing of paper flight charts with iPads. Let’s say 200 passengers brought iPads, Kindles or Nooks aboard instead of books. Wouldn’t that save a lot of weight and fuel too?

If it’s about being distracted during critical take-off and landing sequences, then the flight attendants should make all passengers put down their non-electronic books during those times too.

Bottom line: Rules that are irrational cause people to lose faith in authority. If this rule is not rational, people think maybe other rules [e.g., the 55 mph speed limit] are not rational either. As respect for authority decreases, chaos ensues.

UPDATE 12/26/2011:
New York Times reports electronic devices do not emit significant energy and are highly unlikely to affect avionics.