Mortifiied said:

Damn that’s more expensive than I thought it would be, what did you use to connect the plexiglass together?

---

Quote:

The tip of the scalpel absolutely can be a contamination vector. The relevant issue isn't that the metal was sterile when I flamed it. The issue is what happens after that point. Once the sterile instrument and exposed material are operating inside the SAB, you're dealing with airborne particulate contamination: dust, skin particles, spores, droplets, and everything else that can settle onto an exposed surface. That's precisely why minimizing exposure and unnecessary manipulation matters. The same principle applies to your syringe.

---

Quote:

You're treating the LC as though it exists in a binary state of "sterile" versus "contaminated." Real aseptic work isn't that black and white

---

Quote:

Your LC vessel has already been opened and exposed to the working environment during inoculation

---

Quote:

If I can transfer material directly from the donor to the intended recipient with a sterile instrument, or no instrument at all, (gravity) then adding another vessel, a syringe, another needle, another penetration point, another handling operation, and another interface doesn't automatically make the procedure safer merely because the needle can be flame sterilized. A sterile needle is still another thing that has to be introduced, manipulated, cooled, positioned, and passed through another interface correctly. That's the distinction I posit you are missing: that the sterility of an individual component does not equal sterility of the entire process

---

Chiron098 said:

then explain why it is incorrect and what i'm interpreting it wrong.

---

Quote:

i answered your question. by all means use a syringe and a ship. but dont pretend like you are capable of giving me advice or knowing more than me on something you've never actually carried out.

---