Handheld germ zapper uses nanotechnology to nix parasites

If you're the type who rocks latex gloves everywhere you go, or you're just tired of toting around that messy liquid hand sanitizer, Hammacher Schlemmer has your solution. Posing as a flip-phone wannabe, this handheld germ-eliminating light reportedly eradicates "99.99-percent of E-Coli, staphylococcus, salmonella, and germs that cause the flu and the common cold." Aside from resembling a bevy of Nokia handsets, the device purportedly utilizes "UV-C light and nanotechnology" in order to "disinfect workplace keyboards or telephones (or mice), as well as items in the home that sustain germ vitality such as toothbrushes and cutting boards." Notably, it must be held just so above the germ-infested area in order to sterilize it, but an internal timer signals when the process is complete. So while we aren't apt to load down our knapsacks anymore with something so petty, the highly susceptible out there can get their own portable germ-slaying handheld now for $79.95.

[Via Slashgear]

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Jan 2nd 2007 4:45AM]

This is the perfect thing to have on you when you need to enter a public restroom.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Jan 2nd 2007 4:56AM]

I can Imagine that such a decive could prove popular among doctors and medical professionals.

[Timbobsteve @ Jan 2nd 2007 5:01AM]

This is all good for doctors and medical usage, but the second this becomes a commodity device the total strength of the human gene-pool will be weakened irrevocably. By eliminating germs will will become more and more susceptible to the flu and colds and all sorts of mutated nasties.

Good idea until it becomes popular.

[MPG @ Jan 2nd 2007 5:12AM]

So where is the nanotechnology? I guess some smart marketing expert knew exactly that it is good enough to just claim that this device uses nanotechnology, because Engadget will just copy that claim into the headline of an article without actually checking whether or not its true.

[Secret Asian Man @ Jan 2nd 2007 5:38AM]

This paranoia over germs has gone out of hand. The vast majority of germs are harmless or even beneficial to us and the world. Blindly destroying them not only fails to prevent VIRUS-INFECTED illnesses such as the cold or the flu, but allows more resistant and dangerous bacterias to exist by killing off weaker ones and/or accelerating the evolution of bacterias. In addition to weakening our immune system as mentioned by another poster.

Why would you need this in the public restroom? I mean, do you have direct physical contact with feces and urine there? Do you walk barefoot over urine soaked tiles? Rub your ass in crap smeared toilet seats? Any restroom that's that filthy is beyond the help of a freakin' UV "nanotechnology" powered brick. Meanwhile, most bathrooms are fairly clean. I mean, people urinate and defecate into non-porous bowls filled with fairly safe treated tap water that gets regularly flushed and refiled. There's little opportunity for germs to breed other than to stink up the place. The level of airborne fecal matter is too low to cause any sickness. That is until we've weakened our wussified immune system to the point where any tiny amount of bacteria can easily kill us because we're too stupid and paranoid.

[petenpepsi @ Jan 2nd 2007 6:23AM]

How many of us are old enough to remember having a cold and NOT getting pumped full of antibiotics? A hot bowl of soup, hot cocoa, and some rest always worked for me as a kid. Coming from a large family, if one of us were sick, the rest of us were ventually exposed to it anyway. Long live chicken soup, tomato soup and grilled cheese sandwiches

[gfar @ Jan 2nd 2007 6:43AM]

So can I cut up a bunch of chicken, put this thing over the cutting board for a few seconds, and then lick up all the delicious chicken juice without getting salmonella?

FINALLY, the chicken juices will be mine without the salmo-rhea!!

[Doug H @ Jan 2nd 2007 7:15PM]

gfar - wins comment of the day.

[dd @ Jan 2nd 2007 6:50AM]

It's called an immune system. We've all got one, and it does the same job as that device. Or at least it will continue to do so as long as you don't try and wrap yourself in a germ-free world. Once you do that your immune system forgets how to do it's job and you're just counting the days until one nasty little bug sneaks through your germ safety net and you'll get really sick (and possibly die). I was lucky growing up, I played all day long outside and my parents weren't paranoid about germs. As an adult I hardly ever get sick. Haven't had a cold or the flu for over a decade and I thank a healthy immune system for that.

[Iuri @ Jan 2nd 2007 7:50AM]

Huhauhaua, yeah, right! If you always live with germs, you'll be strong and never get sick! That's why people in the middle age were so resistant to E. Coli and Cholera, right? Not to mention Influenza! Why do people insist on talking about stuff they know zip about? I'd sure as hell buy one of those to use on raw food - E. Coli safe salads! Hey, I can see Taco Bell buying some of those!

[Matt @ Jan 2nd 2007 4:10PM]

They were resistant to stuff they were exposed to on a normal basis. It's a proven fact that the rise in antibiotic usage has coincided with a rise in allergies and has resulted in more sickly children. Plus, all these magic bullet treatments do is create hyper-resistant strains that are several times more deadly than the ones that are actually killed off. Case in point: flu vaccine. There have been many, many cases of people that still got the flu after getting said vaccine, and some report worse symptoms than before they had the shot.

You end up getting crap like the bird flu, which was caused by the mutation of drug resistant strains. Antibiotic agents FTL.

[Foamator @ Jan 2nd 2007 11:08AM]

As Secrret Asian Man kinda said, this is just gonna speed up the evolution of viruses/bacteria. It's just natural selection. Kill off all of the weak ones (which aren't resistant to the nano-y UV goodness) and all you have left are the strong, resistant ones.

[Joe Zydeco @ Jan 2nd 2007 11:13AM]

Um, could just be me here, but an exposed UV-C lamp is a pretty dangerous thing.

All it's gonna take is one customer to rest this thing on their skin trying to "disinfect" it, and wind up with a 3rd degree burn or, at the worst, skin cancer.

Not to mention you shouldn't even be LOOKING at a UV-C light source.

[Curtis @ Jan 2nd 2007 2:51PM]

I agree with Joe... UV-C is not nice on eyeballs or skin. However, the thing wouldn't work anyway - first of all, only the bugs that are right on the surface will get zapped - anything that's covered up or in opaque solution will keep its dna intact. Also, somewhat extended exposure is required. We used to put plates under UV-C lamps for 45 minutes to disinfect them, and that's a long time to wait to wash your hands.

[Brian @ Jan 2nd 2007 9:15PM]

Engadget editors should be more selective about reporting this kind of thing. The author seems a little overly jubilant about this product and it's "nanotechnology". Look, it's just a UV light, they've been around for decades. And sure, everything is "nano" at some level. It's a buzzword. There's nothing innovative about this product on the nano level. Bacteria etc. is on the semi-nano scale, and gee, sure, UV light zaps bacteria. Big deal.

[Tyler @ Jan 3rd 2007 9:31AM]

There's little to worry about here in terms of viruses becoming resistant to UV light and overpowering our weak american immune systems. Almost nothing is resistant to UV light, and it doesn't promise to be anytime soon. Plus, the level of adoption necessary to render an impact of the worldwide supply of bacteria with these handheld devices is astronomical -- we're talking more than ipods in america. It astounds me that anyone can see an article (with 'nanotechnology' properly placed in quotes, btw) about fighting bacteria with a handheld device, and construct an entire doomsday scenario. Live a little.

[jscheftic @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:35PM]

The article stated that the device is used on solid surfaces, not on the skin. While liquid hand sanitizers are for the skin, not solid surfaces. Many UV lights are harmful to the eyes depending on the wavelength. The article does not indicate any cautions of usage.

[Richard W @ Jan 4th 2007 5:49AM]

None of the pathogens mentioned are parasites, sorry to nit pick, but the ones mentioned are bacteria & viruses.