Spiral UVB evidence?

LBonawitz

Member
i told the guy that ownes the pet shop in the town i live that i've read on here the spiral uvb bulbs are bad for chameleons eyes. but spiral is all he carries (i have to buy my bulbs online). today i went to buy crickets and he asked me to show him a web site that has actual study and case evidence that spirals are bad, not just "joe blow on some forum"

do you guys know of any web sites i can forward onto him in an e-mail that would give him the evidence he is asking for?:confused:
 

Docility

New Member
it still doesnt confirm it, but only says there are cases this has happened, and unless they can prove it happening ina multitude of settings its not good enough to be considered solid evidence. i didnt have an issue when i used one when he was a baby, but maybe i was lucky. i dont use them now, but i wish there was lab studied cases and replication to prove this, and yes that would mean they would have to purposefully blind the animals and i just dont see that happening.
 

Dunnigan

New Member
I have been looking for this site i saw that had, from what i remember, a statement from zoo-med admitting that they were to blame for the problems, but it was not intentional. Sorta like an unseen error, they had too much of the chemical that makes the UV in the bulbs and it was frying animals eyes. (yes they should have used a UV meter to check output BEFORE selling...)

From what i know they have since corrected the issue and the bulbs that are out now will not cause any harm. BUT they do have a higher UV openetration and thus need to be placed farther from the animal than the 5.0 tube lights.

I dont use them because i like to be overcautious.

I could be completely wrong here, but this is what i gather from the readings i have done.
 
it still doesnt confirm it, but only says there are cases this has happened, and unless they can prove it happening ina multitude of settings its not good enough to be considered solid evidence. i didnt have an issue when i used one when he was a baby, but maybe i was lucky. i dont use them now, but i wish there was lab studied cases and replication to prove this, and yes that would mean they would have to purposefully blind the animals and i just dont see that happening.
Did you actually read the reports on the site? You didn't see the laboratory results, the multiple responses from ZooMed, the warning published by Central Aquatics, the correspondence from Big Apple Pet SUpply?

They didn't blind animals in the lab tests. They measured radiation levels emitted by the sun, and compared those to the radiation levels emitted by these bulbs, and found that the bulbs emit 8.9 to 14.2 times the radiation strength of the sun. Quite astounding. Based on those findings, and backed up by the fact the injured animals recovered (if not too far gone) when removed from exposure to such bulbs, the scientists were able to determine that the bulbs are dangerous.

Here is one small quote from the report:
"Light from these lamps would therefore appear to be between four and eight times as photobiologically active as light from the sun. At close range these lamps were all producing hazardous levels of UVB. Spectrograms indicated that all these lamps utilise a distinctive phosphor of a type used in lamps for testing the deterioration under UVB of resistant materials such as roofing and car bodywork, and in older-style human clinical phototherapy lamps (so-called "FS" lamps). The lamps we tested from three different brands generate low wavelength UVB, some from as low as 275 - 280nm, whereas the lower limit of UVB in natural sunlight is 290-295nm. (The phosphor used in many other brands of reptile UVB lamps is of a type used in some human tanning lamps, which mimics the UV in sunlight and produces no UVB at wavelengths below 290nm.) As well as a much higher proportion of more damaging non-solar UV energy at wavelengths below 295 nm, the lamps with the problem phosphor proved to have a higher total UVB output than most other brands of fluorescent reptile UVB lamps. Because much of this is in the more photobiologically active wavelengths, the risk of reaching a threshold dose for photo-kerato-conjunctivitis, and possibly other forms of UV radiation damage, is much greater than with other lamps."
 

Docility

New Member
Did you actually read the reports on the site? You didn't see the laboratory results, the multiple responses from ZooMed, the warning published by Central Aquatics, the correspondence from Big Apple Pet SUpply?

They didn't blind animals in the lab tests. They measured radiation levels emitted by the sun, and compared those to the radiation levels emitted by these bulbs, and found that the bulbs emit 8.9 to 14.2 times the radiation strength of the sun. Quite astounding. Based on those findings, and backed up by the fact the injured animals recovered (if not too far gone) when removed from exposure to such bulbs, the scientists were able to determine that the bulbs are dangerous.

Here is one small quote from the report:
"Light from these lamps would therefore appear to be between four and eight times as photobiologically active as light from the sun. At close range these lamps were all producing hazardous levels of UVB. Spectrograms indicated that all these lamps utilise a distinctive phosphor of a type used in lamps for testing the deterioration under UVB of resistant materials such as roofing and car bodywork, and in older-style human clinical phototherapy lamps (so-called "FS" lamps). The lamps we tested from three different brands generate low wavelength UVB, some from as low as 275 - 280nm, whereas the lower limit of UVB in natural sunlight is 290-295nm. (The phosphor used in many other brands of reptile UVB lamps is of a type used in some human tanning lamps, which mimics the UV in sunlight and produces no UVB at wavelengths below 290nm.) As well as a much higher proportion of more damaging non-solar UV energy at wavelengths below 295 nm, the lamps with the problem phosphor proved to have a higher total UVB output than most other brands of fluorescent reptile UVB lamps. Because much of this is in the more photobiologically active wavelengths, the risk of reaching a threshold dose for photo-kerato-conjunctivitis, and possibly other forms of UV radiation damage, is much greater than with other lamps."
thats zoomed. im telling you what a Hagen rep told me. they have not had any solid evidence brought against them in their bulbs so there for they will not make a change. I do agree though they should be doing tests on these with a full range spectrometer for their expected life span before pushing to market.
 

Docility

New Member
also see this

"Please understand that we are hobbyists. We are NOT experts."

this is coming from a site that is not a certified lab study, and will not be taken seriously.

From that right there would throw all meaning out the window. it may make them test their product, but other than that it holds no faith. If i couldnt use it as a solid resource in a report for university work then there is no way they will consider it. Hagen is full of their selves, and make suffer from it. Im still very skeptical of the site, and their resources, but i do follow certain safety procedures to ensure nothing goes wrong.

They have info, and have done some testing, but unless they have a certified scientific testing team at a approved location it just wont hold weight with a big company. at least zoomed listens though. No matter what you say its not legally confirmed though i would never use one
 
Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I see what you mean.

also see this

"Please understand that we are hobbyists. We are NOT experts."

this is coming from a site that is not a certified lab study, and will not be taken seriously.

From that right there would throw all meaning out the window. it may make them test their product, but other than that it holds no faith. If i couldnt use it as a solid resource in a report for university work then there is no way they will consider it. Hagen is full of their selves, and make suffer from it. Im still very skeptical of the site, and their resources, but i do follow certain safety procedures to ensure nothing goes wrong.

They have info, and have done some testing, but unless they have a certified scientific testing team at a approved location it just wont hold weight with a big company. at least zoomed listens though. No matter what you say its not legally confirmed though i would never use one
 

Dave Weldon

Avid Member
Howdy Laura,

I'd still lead with the http://www.uvguide.co.uk/ site when you speak with the store owner about UVB issues.

Although the UK site has the disclaimer: "Please understand that we are hobbyists. We are not experts", don't discount their ability or their data :). Being that UVB UK Site member and researcher Frances M. Baines, M.A., Vet.M.B., M.R.C.V.S. is also "UV advisor to the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria (BIAZA)'s Reptile and Amphibian Working Group" probably doesn't hurt either :eek:. In fact, some of the manufacturers themselves, relied on the UK's spectrometer and also various metered data as proof enough for them. The mfgr(s) realized that their own in-house lab was not as well-equipped (properly equipped) as the UK investigators' facility was at the time of discovery and deferred to them. These mfgrs had equipment to find the "good" UVB spectral content/levels but not to detect the "bad" shorter wavelengths which was what was doing most of the damage.

Ben is correct that Hagen Exo Terra Repti Glo CFL product is not directly implicated in the injury of reptiles as was/are the Zoomed 10.0 CFL and other various mfgrs' UVB products.

My concern with CFLs in general, is that they concentrate their energy into a narrower radiated surface compared to linear tubes. It's kind of like comparing spot vs. flood basking lights. This makes it harder to get UVB CFLs positioned to deliver the desired levels over a wide area.
 

jojackson

New Member
My concern with CFLs in general, is that they concentrate their energy into a narrower radiated surface compared to linear tubes. It's kind of like comparing spot vs. flood basking lights. This makes it harder to get UVB CFLs positioned to deliver the desired levels over a wide area.
Thats exactly my thoughts aswell Dave, if your going to rely on artificial sources at all,
you mighht as well be optimising. I stopped using the compact type (bought the first one for the cham as a hatchling) immeadiately as advised on this site. Shortly thereafter I took ownership of a trio of bearded dragons, almost blind from the use of a compact 10
used in a gloss white melamine enclosure.
This was actually the least of their worries, because they in the worst condition Id seen in a very long time to say the least, I wont launch into a long bla bla session about it all, just say that, limbs on the verge of needing amputation to due multiple layers of unshed skin all over the body, toes lost, emaciated in one case (was dominated) , not to mention the eye issus. So I have seen the effects of their use and understand the consequences of their use.
(the three are doing well by the way, alot of hard work and tlc and no more limbs were lost, condition returned, activity too, all eating really well and sight restored in two. Eye damage seems permant for the smaller one, she is almost blind, or I assume so, she barely sees well enough to catch crickets, she really has to get close to see them to eat, so I have to hand feed.)

I still prefer natural UV myself, as much as possible, the tubes are considered supplimentary. :)
 
Top Bottom