CLF bulbs vs Household bulbs. food for thought

VeiledOwner87

New Member
i would REALLY like to know how CLF bulbs are known to cause SOME blindness.. cause remember.. this doesnt happen to ALL chameleons.um.. in a compact top they appear alot dimmer than the florecent tubes. im confident they put out the same amount of uv. seeing as exo-terra shows uv travel charts right on their packaging. could it POSSIBLY BE. just a slight MAYYBE, its desert type basking bulbs, or perhaps even the household bulbs alot of you guys go into? house hold bulbs are bright, and cool white bulbs are brighter. they make reptile supplies for a reason, yes their expensive in some cases, but why cheap out? thats what there made for! this is JUST my opinion. but i think alot on here should stop scaring the noobs into going straight for a whole linear fixture when they have a biginner or smaller cage. reptiles cost a lot to keep up, and some people just cant be spending spending spending. you gotta make due with what you have (reptile supplies) and make do with a budget you have (for reptile products). my opinion is.. if you have a small set up, by all means a compact top with a right CLF bulb or even a dome with a CLF bulb will do just fine. if you have a larger enclosure, or multipule setups same height, its more money efficient and benificial to have a linear fixture.

would anybody on this site agree with me even a slightest? or am i alone on this one? again! this is JUST MY OPINION, i dont want any wars starting on this thread. people take alot of stuff on here very serious. but its food for thought. perhaps housebulbs and sun basking bulbs are no good for chameleons. me and my girlfriend have successfully kept 3 chameleons with CLFs and they are perfectly healthy with alert eyes always,
 
I'm not all that informed on the issue, but I know that it was a limited set of bulbs, not all. There's sort of a general "no, don't use those!" cry that happens, but I don't believe all compacts are a problem.
 
If you actually search and read the threads on CFL's, you'll find your answer. I believe the problem was with faulty CFL's that produced too much UV in a concentrated area, thereby blinding the chameleon. Not all bulbs did this, because not all were faulty. The problem was that they actually were not outputting the same amount of UV. There's a member on this forum who lost her chameleon due to complications after using a CFL.

I ordered my linear UVB bulbs from the internet and they weren't really that expensive. I would rather spend an extra $10-15 on bulbs then chance blinding my chameleons. You're basically telling us not to "cheap out" on the basking bulb by using a regular household bulb, yet you don't want to spend a little more on a linear UVB bulb? That makes no sense :rolleyes:
 
why ? here in lies the answer

https://www.chameleonforums.com/updated-info-cf-uvb-lamps-29318/ http://www.uvguide.co.uk/phototherapyphosphor-info.htm there have been poven spectral issues with most cfl reptile uvb. but i also believe that part of the problem is due to the burn in issue, according to http://www.uvguide.co.uk/compactlamps.htm a typical cfl reptile lamp will decline approx 20% after about the first one hundred hrs of use. thats more of a user / lamp knowledge issue, than an issue of the lamp, as it is just an inhearant trait of the lamp and it would be up to the user to learn/know that, (unless of course you feel it should be up to the chameleon to know that) so i think a lot of problems are experienced by new keepers (who dont know anything except what they were told at the pets store) come home set up the cage, screwed in the light that was too bright to begin with, and put their cham in the cage, possibly with improper lighting, distances, inappropriate reflectors, or insufficient plantings. and 2 weeks later have some sort of optic distress. a reptisun 5.0 is 26 watts, in terms of wattage, that is slightly more wattage than a 36" reptisun 5.0, except that its not 36", instead of being evenly a wash over the entire upper part of the cage, it is most concentrated in an area not much bigger than a foot across, and if you use a dome reflector, then that effectively doubles the usable output even further and then there are those who insist on using desert (10.0) bulbs for non desert (5.0) species. and all of that is not even taking into account any spectral issues the bulbs may have. combine that with somebody who hasnt had that much experience with chams, and likely hasnt settled on a very good regimen of diet and supplementation, and in all probability has not given all that much thought to the requirements of reptile uvb, (other than just reading a few posts), then you have got a real recipe for some lighting generated husbandry issues. please understand that it is not just an issue of intensity. uv is expressed in terms of wavelength (nm=nanometer) output. there is good uvb and bad uvc. once you start going below 290nm then you are leaving the desired reptile uvb and starting to get into harmful uvc wavelengths (i think anything <290nm is approaching a harmful wavelength) so no, i dont think it has anything to do with regular uva (incandescent house hold bulbs) or typical uva reptile basking bulbs. there may be some argument however for atypical/ non-conventional uv/a-b basking bulbs (metal halide for example), which may emit some levels of unsafe radiation (not to be confused with halogen) also, i would be interested to know how long you have kept these chams? what cfls you were using? and how often they were replaced?, bear in mind that sometimes problems take years to manifest in chameleons. and once they become appearent, they can be hard, if not impossible, to reverse, they can be fine for months, or even years, and one morning you find them on the floor of the cage,(at any given time there aren usually several posts in the health clinic that fit that very discription). many new keepers refuse to accept that, until it happens to them, at least once. how would you feel if you did not find out until it is too late, that there is/was a problem with your lighting. which we here on cf have seen time & time again, so if you fail to listen / learn, and months down the road you have to post in the health forums because of possible lighting related health issues, then dont be suprised, if there are some who are not all that sympathetic, or even a few i told you so's. this is why the vast majority of experienced keepers are so adament about the use of lineal reptisun 5.0 as the preferred safe uvb of choice. jmo
 
Last edited:
It should also be made known that the problem isn't just chameleons who have experienced CFL problems. Most reptiles who need UVB and were exposed to those lights have reports of problems (including bearded dragons.)
 
there was a post several months ago (by sommoner12 i believe) showing the uv emission of a ordinary cheap cfl. the fact remains, that in order to have a really good sense of your own setup you need a uv/meter. without one all you can do is take an educated guess, and if i have to base my husbandry lighting on a guess, i am going with lineal reptisun 5.0. on the other hand, if you have a uv meter then experiment away, at least you will know what kind of levels you are dealing with.
 
good opinions everyone. how much do UV meeters cost about? i have upgraded my lighting to the tubes because of my bigger cage. i just wanted some more imput as to why it is better.
 
Howdy,

Here's one source that has an excellent price ($152.99) for the Solarmeter model 6.2:
http://www.pangeareptile.com/store/uv-meter.html

Another source: http://www.carolinapetsupply.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=44&products_id=240

Don't by any other manufacturer's meter other than the Solartech Solarmeter product line. The Solarmeter 6.2 has the right sensitivity and spectral range for us to be able to setup UV-B light sources already know to be safe. It should be used to properly set the height as well as watch the aging of those safe UVB sources. It should not be used to judge whether or not a particular UVB source's spectral content is safe or not. Other than using a spectrometer (as the UVGuide people do) additional insight can be found by using the Solarmeter 6.2 in combination with the Solarmeter 6.5 (measures UV Index) to look into the ratios of the "regular" UVB as it compares to the more biologically active (shorter wavelengths) portion of the UVB spectrum. One could say that the model 6.2 is designed to find the "good" UVB, not look for the bad UVB. Looking with both meters somewhat helps in that regard. Solartech makes an entire line of meters, each responding to particular potions of the spectrum. They even make one (6.4) that measures and displays the UVB content as it relates to Vitamin D3 IU/minute.

In summary, the recommended method is to refer to the UVGUIDE website to pick a safe product and, if available, to use the 6.2 to set the height to obtain the desired uW/cm2 levels. Heights can also be found on the website but it doesn't take into account your actual setup, screen, plants, angles etc.

Too complicated :eek:? Then just buy a ZooMed Reptisun 5.0 linear tube and place it ~6"-12" away from the basking spot and be done with it :).
 
6.4 vs 6.2

Dave, if the 6.4 measures the same spectral range, plus provides potentially useful d3 info, then wouldnt that make it the more useful model to have? (i am assuming the price is significantly higher?)
 
Last edited:
Has anyone measured the emission spectra of these bulbs? Where I work, I have the capability to do this. Maybe I should just measure a few of these bulbs under the same conditions and we could compare them?
 
most reptile uvb has been measured and analized pretty extensively, however new, updated, or conflicting, info is always welcome. the biggest portion of the controversy is centered around reptisun cfls dated before jan of 09 (of which there are plenty still on the market) the newer reptisun cfl's have been sucessfully reformulated to correct the spectral issues, but they havent had time to establish a track history. zilla desert 50 in cfl or linear is also another notorious bulb. many other other reptile cfls are still suspect.
 
should i really not worry too much about the exo brand then? just for say a couple more months or so for my girlfriends chameleon, and also my beardies that i will be picking up tomorrow. we've been using them almost a year now, again like i've said, have upgraded my main enclosure with flourescent tubes, but will still be using it on my pygmy enclosure. my girlfriend uses exo bulbs in her compact tops for a juvie cage and a 22g flexarium.
 
most reptile uvb has been measured and analized pretty extensively, however new, updated, or conflicting, info is always welcome. the biggest portion of the controversy is centered around reptisun cfls dated before jan of 09 (of which there are plenty still on the market) the newer reptisun cfl's have been sucessfully reformulated to correct the spectral issues, but they havent had time to establish a track history. zilla desert 50 in cfl or linear is also another notorious bulb. many other other reptile cfls are still suspect.

Have they been analyzed by independent and unbiased parties, or is the information from the manufacturer? I think I would trust my own measurement much more than the information supplied by the manufacturer. The problem for me would be simply getting all the bulbs to measure. I guess I could buy them, measure them, and return them perhaps. Of course it would be good to have the reptisun cfl dated before jan-09 and after to compare the difference.
 
you say you have been using your bulbs for a year? From what ive read on here they should be changed every six to nine months as the uv output drops dramatically at that point.
 
Dave, if the 6.4 measures the same spectral range, plus provides potentially useful d3 info, then wouldnt that make it the more useful model to have? (i am assuming the price is significantly higher?)
Howdy John,

If I recall correctly, there may be reptile research people out there who are trying to get correlation data between a reptile's D3 production and the Solarmeter 6.4 results. Right now, I think the issue is that the Solarmeter 6.4 is setup with human skin in mind. Measurements made with the meter are manually entered into a software tool to calculate the human D3 results. Maybe someday we'll have something for chameleons. I'm sure there's more to it than what I've pointed out here :eek:.
 
Back
Top Bottom