# Coil bulb



## Alina+Andrey (Aug 10, 2014)

Hello from Latvia.
I just wrote in the biggest tortoise's forum in Russia, that coil bulb is dangerous. Thousand of people in Russia had especially this kind of UVB lamps. There are many tortoise's doctors and they can't believe me. They told, that in right height it can't be dangerous.
Maybe you have some articles or researches or many examples of this problem. Please help me to give right information. I hope they will change coil bulbs. They asked me- why tubes are not dangerous.
Thank you very much.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

People here apparently believe that all compact fluorescent UV lamps are categorically bad. I'd like to see some proof for that.

As far as I know, certain older lamps had a flawed spectral output, too much short wavelength UV at dangerously high intensities. But that should have been fixed by now... Here's a website I found that has details.


----------



## StarSapphire22 (Aug 10, 2014)

The thing is, there were no recalls of those bulbs. They can be mixed in with new bulbs that are supposedly fixed. There's no way to know what you're getting.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> People here apparently believe that all compact fluorescent UV lamps are categorically bad...



I know of no one here that thinks that. The fact is that SOME of them cause damage some of the time. There are thousands upon thousands of those bulbs in use that haven't harmed anything. The problem is that far too many of them DO cause damage, and there is no way to know which ones are okay and which ones will burn your tortoises eyes. Better to just not use them, and instead use other bulbs that don't have this issue.


Alina, there are no studies that I know of. Who would fund it? There is no incentive for the manufacturer to spend tons of money to find out their bulbs are dangerous. They sell as many as they can make, so there is no incentive for them to look into it. There is no tortoise consumer group to fund such a study... All we have is each other and sharing our observations.


----------



## motero (Aug 10, 2014)

One idea I have read, Is that the light fixtures with metal reflectors amplify the UV some how. And the reflectors that are coated white on the inside are safer to use. If only a few eyes were hurt by coil bulbs that is enough for me not to use them.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

StarSapphire22 said:


> The thing is, there were no recalls of those bulbs. They can be mixed in with new bulbs that are supposedly fixed. There's no way to know what you're getting.


Well, that was at least 5 years ago. The old lamps should be really rare by now. The website I linked mentions ways to recognize the new lamps for a few models.

Also, note that not all of the bad lamps were "coil" type compact fluorescents lamps (CFLs). There were some bad fluorescent tube lamps as well (by Big Apple Herp. and R-Zilla). It's not the shape of the lamps that causes problems, it's the type of phosphor they use to produce UV output.
Other noteworthy aspects are orientation and reflectors. I've seen people suggesting to orient CFLs horizontally rather than vertically, saying they're less harmful that way. Common sense and the measurements on that site disagree. The longer side of a lamp will obviously emit more UV than the lamp's tip, simply because of its larger area. So, if you orient a CFL horizontally, in parallel with the ground, more UV will actually hit the ground. Things change with reflectors / domes, of course. Domes with a white coating reflect very little UV. Metallic domes on the other hand, particularly polished ones, will reflect the sideways emissions downwards which can lead to a dangerous increase of UV intensity.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> Well, that was at least 5 years ago. The old lamps should be really rare by now. The website I linked mentions ways to recognize the new lamps for a few models.
> 
> Also, note that not all of the bad lamps were "coil" type compact fluorescents lamps (CFLs). There were some bad fluorescent tube lamps as well (by Big Apple Herp. and R-Zilla). It's not the shape of the lamps that causes problems, it's the type of phosphor they use to produce UV output.
> Other noteworthy aspects are orientation and reflectors. I've seen people suggesting to orient CFLs horizontally rather than vertically, saying they're less harmful that way. Common sense and the measurements on that site disagree. The longer side of a lamp will obviously emit more UV than the lamp's tip, simply because of its larger area. So, if you orient a CFL horizontally, in parallel with the ground, more UV will actually hit the ground. Things change with reflectors / domes, of course. Domes with a white coating reflect very little UV. Metallic domes on the other hand, particularly polished ones, will reflect the sideways emissions downwards which can lead to a dangerous increase of UV intensity.




I have personally seen them mounted vertically or horizontally in several types of fixtures do damage. I don't see the orientation of fixture making any difference. It seems the individual bulbs do, or don't do, the damage.

I share Motero's sentiment: If only a few eyes were damaged, that is enough for me to recommend something else. Unfortunately I've seen more than a few eyes damaged.


----------



## Alina+Andrey (Aug 10, 2014)

For me too, the same. I turn off them, as soon as I red information about them in Care Sheet. But people from forum cherepahi.ru have never seen problems with coil lamps Repti Glo 10.0. They put them in 25-30 cm from substrate. They can't believe me without more information, I jut want to save tortoise's eyes.
Maybe there are some links with examples, where tortoise had problem with eyes because of Lamps. I just want, that they believe me. I am not a professional keeper. You can imagine, If new user will write here information like this, you will ask about the proof.The same is with me, my opinion is not so important for professionals.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

Tom said:


> THBfriend said:
> 
> 
> > People here apparently believe that all compact fluorescent UV lamps are categorically bad...
> ...





Tom said:


> If only a few eyes were damaged, that is enough for me to recommend something else.



Now that's precisely what I was talking about. You categorically don't recommend CFLs because you've made some bad experiences. But fact is there are, or at least were, bad UV tube lamps as well. So, it'd be more useful and less superstitious to have a list of confirmed safe models for both lamp shapes.



Alina+Andrey said:


> For me too, the same. I turn off them, as soon as I red information about them in Care Sheet. But people from forum cherepahi.ru have never seen problems with coil lamps Repti Glo 10.0. They put them in 25-30 cm from substrate. They can't believe me without more information, I jut want to save tortoise's eyes.
> Maybe there are some links with examples, where tortoise had problem with eyes because of Lamps.


Again: those lamps do not *always* damage reptile eyes. If those tortoise keepers use CFLs that appear to cause no problems, why should they switch?

Did you not look at the website I linked? You'll find some photos of affected reptiles there, and more technical information than you probably want.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> Now that's precisely what I was talking about...



No sir._ It is not. _ Not recommending them because I have personally seen many cases of them causing eye damage is NOT the same thing as "People here apparently believe that all compact fluorescent UV lamps are categorically bad."

I have never said they are all bad, and neither has anyone else here. What we _have_ said is that there is a disproportionate number of cases of eye damage with these bulbs compared to other safer alternatives.


----------



## Alina+Andrey (Aug 10, 2014)

I looked your website, thank you. And I wrote this link for people from Russian forum.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

Tom said:


> No sir._ It is not._


You're right, it is not. It's a fine but important distinction, though I doubt that many people will catch it when reading about this topic.
Anyway, those "disproportionate number of cases of eye damage" you have seen with UV CFLs, how many cases are we talking about, what products were used in which configuration, and how long ago did it happen? That's the kind of hard evidence I'd like to see. Not that I'd need it, though. I don't use any dedicated UV lamp at all. Just sunlight, and an MVB.


----------



## Jabuticaba (Aug 10, 2014)

At the right height it might not be dangerous for their eyes, but it's also not effective at all, as a source of UV. 


May, Aussies, & THBs
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## wellington (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> You're right, it is not. It's a fine but important distinction, though I doubt that many people will catch it when reading about this topic.
> Anyway, those "disproportionate number of cases of eye damage" you have seen with UV CFLs, how many cases are we talking about, what products were used in which configuration, and how long ago did it happen? That's the kind of hard evidence I'd like to see. Not that I'd need it, though. I don't use any dedicated UV lamp at all. Just sunlight, and an MVB.




Search the forum you will find many threads of eye problems and the OP was using the coil bulbs. The most recent is not yet a year old. Just because they are so cheap is the reason most people wants to use them. I and most of us here want to do better for our torts then saving a few bucks while putting our torts eyes at risk. Better to not use them at all then take a chance. Btw, can't find it, but if you do a google search, you may find where the regular coil house bulb has been known to cause problems in humans and they are just regular cfl bulbs, no uvb


----------



## Maggie Cummings (Aug 10, 2014)

I had a yearling Sulcata (Tony Stewart) who was blinded about 5 years ago from a spiral type bulb. His pen mate got bad eyes but by then I was picking up on it so I moved him out of that habitat. To my knowledge he can see fine now. But Tony Stewart was adopted out and I don't have any idea where or how he is....I've just seen or heard about so much eye damage right here on TFO as well as in my own herd. I won't use a coil bulb, no matter how safe someone says they are...


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

Jabuticaba said:


> At the right height it might not be dangerous for their eyes, but it's also not effective at all, as a source of UV.


Says who? Claims like that need to be backed by evidence.



wellington said:


> Btw, can't find it, but if you do a google search, you may find where the regular coil house bulb has been known to cause problems in humans and they are just regular cfl bulbs, no uvb


Pity that you don't have a source. If I do a google search, I can find all sorts of stuff that isn't necessarily true...
Regular fluorescent tube lights aren't great either. They have long been known to cause headaches and eye strain for some people, because of their rather low flicker frequency.



maggie3fan said:


> I won't use a coil bulb, no matter how safe someone says they are...


I understand, and that's a very human behavior. But you have to admit that it's also a bit irrational. It's like saying "I had a crash with a GM car once, so I'll never use a GM car again".


----------



## jaizei (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> You're right, it is not. It's a fine but important distinction, though I doubt that many people will catch it when reading about this topic.
> Anyway, those "disproportionate number of cases of eye damage" you have seen with UV CFLs, how many cases are we talking about, what products were used in which configuration, and how long ago did it happen? That's the kind of hard evidence I'd like to see. Not that I'd need it, though. I don't use any dedicated UV lamp at all. Just sunlight, and an MVB.



You are wasting your time here. I've said everything you're saying and for most people it will do no good until one of the 'experts' flips and says its ok to use them. I remember when MVBs were becoming more popular and were the boogeyman. That's just the way it is and probably always will be.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> I understand, and that's a very human behavior. But you have to admit that it's also a bit irrational. It's like saying "I had a crash with a GM car once, so I'll never use a GM car again".



In no way is what we are saying anything like saying that.


This is like saying that since a particular make and model of car frequently bursts into spontaneous combustion, due to a design flaw that is known and has been documented and observed many times, I'll choose to use a car other than that make and model that does not typically burst into flames.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

jaizei said:


> You are wasting your time here.


Thanks. I'm starting to get that impression indeed.



Tom said:


> This is like saying that since a particular make and model of car frequently bursts into spontaneous combustion, due to a design flaw that is known and has been documented and observed many times, I'll choose to use a car other than that make and model that does not typically burst into flames.


No sir._ It is not. _It's like saying that since a few cars that shared a particular shape did spontaneously explode, now all similarly shaped cars have to be avoided for all eternity, because you know, they might explode, too. Doesn't matter that the internal tech is completely different or was fixed and improved...


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> No sir._ It is not. _It's like saying that since a few cars that shared a particular shape did spontaneously explode, now all similarly shaped cars have to be avoided for all eternity, because you know, they might explode, too. Doesn't matter that the internal tech is completely different or was fixed and improved...



Because this is an ongoing and regular occurrence only with these types of UV bulbs, I disagree. If the "internal tech" was completely different or fixed and improved, we would not see a continuous stream of the issues, would we?

Use or recommend these bulbs if you wish, but please don't infer that we are superstitious imbeciles because there is not a high dollar scientific study for us to cite and back up what is obvious and right in front of our faces. I have seen these bulbs do damage, first hand, and I believe it is in the best interest of our pet reptiles to use something else rather than take such a risk.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

jaizei said:


> You are wasting your time here...



I disagree with you too. I think this is a worthwhile discussion with benefit to people reading and deciding what bulbs they should use over their tortoise or turtle enclosure.

Sure it would be nice to be able to simply post a link to an irrefutable scientific study showing exactly what is, or is not, taking place with these bulbs, but until that exists we are left with sharing our observations of the obvious.


----------



## jaizei (Aug 10, 2014)

Tom said:


> I disagree with you too. I think this is a worthwhile discussion with benefit to people reading and deciding what bulbs they should use over their tortoise or turtle enclosure.
> 
> Sure it would be nice to be able to simply post a link to an irrefutable scientific study showing exactly what is, or is not, taking place with these bulbs, but until that exists we are left with sharing our observations of the obvious.



I thought the same thing years ago when I was playing his part. So I speak from experience, he will probably not leave this discussion satisfied and his time could probably be better spent. 

We've been over this before. Pyramiding used to obviously be caused by too much protein. How did that work out? Sometimes the 'obvious' isn't so.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

jaizei said:


> We've been over this before. Pyramiding used to obviously be caused by too much protein. How did that work out? Sometimes the 'obvious' isn't so.



So you are saying the damage I've seen caused by these coil bulbs, wasn't caused by these coil bulbs? You are telling me what I have seen with my own eyes is a myth like the pyramiding/protein thing?

You know how I know the protein thing is a myth? Because I observed it with my own eyes in multiple situations and many cases. Not too many scientific papers to back up what I already knew was true back then either. Guess how I know that coil bulbs sometimes damage tortoise eyes...

Why do you believe one of my assertions with no lab obtained scientific proof, but not the other?


----------



## wellington (Aug 10, 2014)

If he is looking for us to cave and risk damaging our torts eyes, because he or you say it's okay, then your correct, he's waisting his time. I have seen enough on here that I won't take the risk to save a few bucks. Unless, your making money off those bulbs, why do you care that much that we don't want to risk it and we don't want others to risk it either?
Do you have the proof that none of those bulbs are still out there? Do you have the proof, they are fixed? Not just their word they fixed them, but proof. Yes, there are many reasons on the Internet why cfl are not safe. Same for most anything. I read it, hear it and then make my choice. My animal doesn't have the choice, that's what I am for. I don't believe I should make the choice that I know could hurt him. I also would make that kind of choice for anyone else except myself. You like them, want to spend little money, then you use them and good luck. I hope you never have a bad experience for the sake of,your animals.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

Tom said:


> So you are saying the damage I've seen caused by these coil bulbs, wasn't caused by these coil bulbs?


That's exactly right! The "coil bulbs" don't cause it. The "UVB313" type phosphor with its intense short-wavelength UVB and borderline UVC output does. Not considering the focus effect of a reflector dome might also play a role.
Yes, more than five years ago, several brand name "coil bulbs" used the bad UVB313 phosphor. But some tubes did, too. Now your line of reasoning appears to be "I don't recommend coil bulbs because with those you'll have a higher chance of getting one that uses UVB313". Alright. There ought to be more precise ways to identify bad lamps (maker, manufacturing date, etc.), but they definitely aren't as simple and covenient. Aside from the problem that there isn't any current data to prove that "higher chance of getting UVB313" is actually true at this point in time, there's the problem that people all too easily misunderstand a simple recommendation like that. When an expert says "I wouldn't recommend a coil bulb because I've made bad experiences with them", it doesn't take much to become "all coil bulbs are bad" in the mind of an uncritical reader. Just take a look at what started this topic... Alina+Andrey's intention is noble (prevent tortoise suffering), but they want people who "have never seen problems with coil lamps" to switch, simply because of what some care sheet said.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 10, 2014)

wellington said:


> If he is looking for us to cave and risk damaging our torts eyes, because he or you say it's okay, then your correct, he's waisting his time.


I'm not looking for anybody to "cave in and risk damaging tort eyes". I'm trying to think critically and get to the bottom of things, and maybe motivate other people to do the same. "Coil bulbs are bad because X said so" just isn't good enough for me. I want to know _why_ they are bad. And in doing so I discovered that not all of them are actually bad. For whatever reason that appears to bother some people.

As for "I have seen enough on here..." - have you ever considered that there might be a silent majority of people who are using current CFLs without issue? People tend to only speak up if there's a problem...
Of course I have no proof that there isn't any old stock out there anymore, just like you have no proof that all UV tubes are safe. Did you even know that some of them weren't? If you don't trust a manufacturer's word, you can always get a spectrometer and measure the lamp's output yourself. Those people of uvguide.co.uk did just that. It's a pity that they aren't active anymore.


----------



## jaizei (Aug 10, 2014)

wellington said:


> Unless, your making money off those bulbs, why do you care that much that we don't want to risk it and we don't want others to risk it either?



Knowledge.





THBfriend said:


> Those people of uvguide.co.uk did just that. It's a pity that they aren't active anymore.



She's somewhat active here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UVB_Meter_Owners/info


----------



## wellington (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> I'm not looking for anybody to "cave in and risk damaging tort eyes". I'm trying to think critically and get to the bottom of things, and maybe motivate other people to do the same. "Coil bulbs are bad because X said so" just isn't good enough for me. I want to know _why_ they are bad. And in doing so I discovered that not all of them are actually bad. For whatever reason that appears to bother some people.
> 
> As for "I have seen enough on here..." - have you ever considered that there might be a silent majority of people who are using current CFLs without issue? People tend to only speak up if there's a problem...
> Of course I have no proof that there isn't any old stock out there anymore, just like you have no proof that all UV tubes are safe. Did you even know that some of them weren't? If you don't trust a manufacturer's word, you can always get a spectrometer and measure the lamp's output yourself. Those people of uvguide.co.uk did just that. It's a pity that they aren't active anymore.



Well, I,have too much to,do in life to worry about the why a bulb is bad for my torts eyes. I have seen enough examples on this forum to not risk it, period. Personally, there is way more bad stuff in the pet industry then good. The bad doesn't always effect every single animal, but if I have had experience or have seen/read enough experience with a certain item being bad, that's enough for me.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 10, 2014)

Personally, I am not willing to play Russian Roulette with any of my pet's health. Even with suspicion of a flaw in a consumer product, it takes years to prompt an investigation (if ever) and years to publish the findings.

Who remembers the massive Toyota recalls between 2009-2010. A man was "sentenced to eight years in jail for rear-ending a car, killing three of the five occupants and injuring the other two. This happened in June 2006 when he was driving home from church with his family and exiting the highway. Koua insists that his 1996 Toyota Camry sped up to between 70 and 90 mph despite heavy braking. In May 2010, a vehicle inspector hired by attorneys for the convicted man reported finding problems with the car's accelerator system." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009...lease_of_Toyota_driver_jailed_for_fatal_crash

He was driving a 1996 Camry, they did not confirm or begin recalls until 2009, 13 years after the car was manufactured (probably more like 14-15 years). And this flaw affected humans and caused human fatalities, how much time, effort and expense is going to be allocated for a reptile product? If it were a cat or dog product, there would be a greater public concern to force the manufacturer's hand; but unfortunately, reptiles are often feared and misunderstood, we simply do not have the numbers.

What I would suggest doing, and I plan on doing myself as soon as I post this, is to begin writing the companies who manufacture these bulbs. Ask for further testing or results from previous testing. Get involved. Contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or your country's equivalent.

Or simply, advocate not using suspect products to hit the companies where it hurts, their bottom line.

I am a strong proponent of opening dialogs and using my voice and any avenues available to me to incite change. At the very least, I know in my heart I did everything I could and fought a good fight.


----------



## Maverick (Aug 10, 2014)

When someone asks about an eye problem on this forum the first question ask is usually "Are you using a coil bulb?" If they answer yes, the reply is usually "Get rid of that bulb they are KNOWN to burn tortoise eyes." Normally by someone who has never owned a coil bulb and only heard it parroted here over and over. I wonder how many tort's actually had other issues and got worse after this advice? Would such a person come back for more "bad advice"? How would we know if it were the bulb?
There are undoubtedly many of the bulbs in use. If there were an epidemic of tortoise blindness, wouldn't we see it here? There should be post after post in the tortoise health section about burned eyes right?
I'm not advocating coil bulbs, they may very well be bad. However to assume every eye problem is bulb related, which often happens, is bad for tort's.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 10, 2014)

Maverick said:


> When someone asks about an eye problem on this forum the first question ask is usually "Are you using a coil bulb?" If they answer yes, the reply is usually "Get rid of that bulb they are KNOWN to burn tortoise eyes." Normally by someone who has never owned a coil bulb and only heard it parroted here over and over. I wonder how many tort's actually had other issues and got worse after this advice? Would such a person come back for more "bad advice"? How would we know if it were the bulb?
> There are undoubtedly many of the bulbs in use. If there were an epidemic of tortoise blindness, wouldn't we see it here? There should be post after post in the tortoise health section about burned eyes right?
> I'm not advocating coil bulbs, they may very well be bad. However to assume every eye problem is bulb related, which often happens, is bad for tort's.




When I have to troubleshoot code or scripting, I eliminate the most likely and easily accessible cause of the problem first. While, perhaps is it not the single cause of the problem, it helps narrow down what the issue may be and sometimes it is the combination of many errors which is causing the problem.

I would be interested in reversing the questioning to, how many people have experienced eye problems with their tortoise/turtle and were not using a coil bulb?


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> Yes, more than five years ago, several brand name "coil bulbs" used the bad UVB313 phosphor.



And here is at least part of the reason for our disagreement. This is not a problem I saw once, five years ago. This is a problem I continue to see to this day, albeit admittedly infrequently considering the amount of these bulbs sold daily. If they stopped using UVB313 phosphor five years ago, then that was not the issue, as the issue still exists, and I see here on this forum and out in the real world.


----------



## Tom (Aug 10, 2014)

Maverick said:


> When someone asks about an eye problem on this forum the first question ask is usually "Are you using a coil bulb?" If they answer yes, the reply is usually "Get rid of that bulb they are KNOWN to burn tortoise eyes." Normally by someone who has never owned a coil bulb and only heard it parroted here over and over. I wonder how many tort's actually had other issues and got worse after this advice? Would such a person come back for more "bad advice"? How would we know if it were the bulb?
> There are undoubtedly many of the bulbs in use. If there were an epidemic of tortoise blindness, wouldn't we see it here? There should be post after post in the tortoise health section about burned eyes right?
> I'm not advocating coil bulbs, they may very well be bad. However to assume every eye problem is bulb related, which often happens, is bad for tort's.



I think littleginsu's response to this sums it up well, but to add my own words as one of the people you are referring to: So often we see swollen irritated eyes and a tortoise that hides all day and loses its appetite. Removal of the coil bulb often results in relief and reversal of the symptoms. Obviously there can also be other causes for eye issues but this is an obvious one to check when trying to help someone eliminate possible causes for their issue. *THAT *is why is it usually the first question asked for someone with a tortoise eye issue.

Let me ask you something Maverick. Have you ever seen a reptile first hand, in person whose eyes were burned by one of these bulbs? For that matter, how about you jaizei or THB? I have. Its not pretty and its obviously very painful for them. Its something I'd like to prevent.


----------



## mikeh (Aug 11, 2014)

The short CFL and specifically coil type CFL design is fundamentally flawed. 
Here is just one of many articles worth reading without going into too many technical details so everyone can understand it. 

http://www.menshealth.com/health/health-risks-fluorescent-lightbulbs/page/2

After reading the article consider your animal being exposed to a CFL for 10-12 hours daily at 9-10" distance. Risk worth taking, definitely not.


----------



## Tom (Aug 11, 2014)

But, but, but Mike... The people making and selling these bulbs and getting millions of dollars for them say the problem is fixed and that they are now safe... Shouldn't we just take their word for it instead of listening to the silly superstitious guy on the tortoise forum who stands to gain nothing by reporting the eye damage that he's seen?


{End sarcasm.}

Thank you for the article. I had not seen that one yet.


----------



## THBfriend (Aug 11, 2014)

mikeh said:


> The short CFL and specifically coil type CFL design is fundamentally flawed.
> Here is just one of many articles worth reading without going into too many technical details so everyone can understand it.


That's quite a lot of blown out of proportion fearmongering and downright misinformation you found there. Let me quote:
_But in contrast to media depictions of “skin-frying” CFLs, researchers are reluctant to draw conclusions about consumer risk on the basis of these findings. “The UV measurement procedures are not described, so one cannot evaluate the data,” says Mats-Olof Mattsson, a cell biology professor at the Austrian Institute of Technology. The authors also reported higher UV emissions than other studies have found and did not follow international measurement standards, he adds.
_
Also, on page 3 of the Men's Health article: _Without anything to protect the pupils, the radiation "goes straight to the retina," she says. _That makes me wonder if Rafailovich actually knows what she's talking about... UV does not go straight to our retina, because both the cornea and lens of our eye actually block UV to a large extent.

Many flaws of CFLs are shared by Tom's beloved {sarcasm} tube FLs, by the way. Like the mercury content. Good CFLs use mercury in a bound amalgam anyway, which is comparatively safe.

So, "single-envelope" (no cover) visible light CFLs might leak UV at close distances... but who is that close to them anyway? At distances of more than 11 inches, UV radiation from a CFL isn’t any more than that of a conventional incandescent bulb_. _And weren't we talking about dedicated UV lamps anyway? You know, lamps with the express purpose of emitting UV.

While we're talking about these sorts of risks and dangers: the lithium-ion batteries in your notebook, phones, and other gadgets are very dangerous. Under certain circumstances they can produce toxic fumes and catch fire. People have been killed by them already. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend using notebooks, phones, etc. (besides, the radiation produced by phones might possibly cause cancer, too!)


----------



## wellington (Aug 11, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> That's quite a lot of blown out of proportion fearmongering and downright misinformation you found there. Let me quote:
> _But in contrast to media depictions of “skin-frying” CFLs, researchers are reluctant to draw conclusions about consumer risk on the basis of these findings. “The UV measurement procedures are not described, so one cannot evaluate the data,” says Mats-Olof Mattsson, a cell biology professor at the Austrian Institute of Technology. The authors also reported higher UV emissions than other studies have found and did not follow international measurement standards, he adds.
> _
> Also, on page 3 of the Men's Health article: _Without anything to protect the pupils, the radiation "goes straight to the retina," she says. _That makes me wonder if Rafailovich actually knows what she's talking about... UV does not go straight to our retina, because both the cornea and lens of our eye actually block UV to a large extent.
> ...




But we choose to use them, the iPads, phones, etc. I know the dangers of smoking too, I still choose to smoke. Our tortoises don't get the choice. Again, I won't choose to use something I have seen on here causing eye problems.


----------



## wellington (Aug 11, 2014)

Maverick said:


> When someone asks about an eye problem on this forum the first question ask is usually "Are you using a coil bulb?" If they answer yes, the reply is usually "Get rid of that bulb they are KNOWN to burn tortoise eyes." Normally by someone who has never owned a coil bulb and only heard it parroted here over and over. I wonder how many tort's actually had other issues and got worse after this advice? Would such a person come back for more "bad advice"? How would we know if it were the bulb?
> There are undoubtedly many of the bulbs in use. If there were an epidemic of tortoise blindness, wouldn't we see it here? There should be post after post in the tortoise health section about burned eyes right?
> I'm not advocating coil bulbs, they may very well be bad. However to assume every eye problem is bulb related, which often happens, is bad for tort's.



I too am one you speak of. I do parrot what I have learned on here. That's what most everyone does that learns something, then shares/parrots it. Everything you learned from your parents or teacher, you parrot in life, or were you born knowing everything? Btw, most if not all of the eye problems that were using a coil bulb, of those that will come back and let us know if the eyes have improved, have improved by the removal of the coil bulbs. Like has been stated before, it's not every tortoise that is bothered, but it's been too many as far as I am concerned.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 11, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> While we're talking about these sorts of risks and dangers: the lithium-ion batteries in your notebook, phones, and other gadgets are very dangerous. Under certain circumstances they can produce toxic fumes and catch fire. People have been killed by them already. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend using notebooks, phones, etc. (besides, the radiation produced by phones might possibly cause cancer, too!)



Is there a any room to differentiate between what I choose for myself, and what I force on a pet? I eat fast food, I choose to eat fast food, the fast food I consume is not by any stretch of the imagination healthy... am I a responsible pet owner if I feed my tortoise nothing but fast food?

I think the lithium-ion battery was a bad analogy.


----------



## Maverick (Aug 11, 2014)

This could go on forever.... First, no one wants tortoise eyes damaged.
The problem I have is when things are being put out there as facts and they are not. People see what they want to see. If you chose to believe what literally some guy is telling you on an internet forum with literally nothing to back it up but there own perception, so be it. They may be correct. I need more proof.
What I don't appreciate is the childish sarcasm, and out right hostile comments like "were you born knowing everything?" So much for an adult discussion. Which is why it was suggested in the beginning to not continue. These threads all end the same way....


----------



## Yvonne G (Aug 11, 2014)

Please bear in mind that this is an ongoing problem. We get at least one new member a week that has a baby tortoise with swollen shut eyes. When we question how the tortoise is being kept and fed, we learn that most everything is ok however the member is using a coil shaped compact fluorescent bulb. If the problem with the bulbs was fixed 5 years ago why are we still seeing the problem showing up?


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 11, 2014)

Maverick, I believe we are having an adult conversation. I think the dividing factor is some want proof they don't harm and others want proof they do harm... Glass half empty, or half full.

I very much value the information I have received from the forum members, and even the open discussions, such as this. Coming together to discuss topics like this only helps us, as a whole, to think critically and solve problems.

So, let's not get discouraged and continue on working towards finding answers to help raise heathy tortoises/turtles!!


----------



## mikeh (Aug 11, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> Other noteworthy aspects are orientation and reflectors. I've seen people suggesting to orient CFLs horizontally rather than vertically, saying they're less harmful that way. Common sense and the measurements on that site disagree. The longer side of a lamp will obviously emit more UV than the lamp's tip, simply because of its larger area. So, if you orient a CFL horizontally, in parallel with the ground, more UV will actually hit the ground.



The "common sense" explanation for horizontal orientation quoted directly from Arcadia Manufacturer under product safety.

" Lamps should be fitted horizontally over the enclosure and ideally not vertically inside of a viv. Light is emitted all the way around the lamp and vertical installation means that the light is produced around the lamp at an un-natural angle and may present glare issues to the animal and keeper. Remember the sun is above us, so should light sources for reptiles."

Worth noting is that Arcadia, one of the most comprehensive reptile UVB light companies does not offer spiral (coil type) CFLs at all.


----------



## wellington (Aug 11, 2014)

Maverick said:


> This could go on forever.... First, no one wants tortoise eyes damaged.
> The problem I have is when things are being put out there as facts and they are not. People see what they want to see. If you chose to believe what literally some guy is telling you on an internet forum with literally nothing to back it up but there own perception, so be it. They may be correct. I need more proof.
> What I don't appreciate is the childish sarcasm, and out right hostile comments like "were you born knowing everything?" So much for an adult discussion. Which is why it was suggested in the beginning to not continue. These threads all end the same way....




When you have seen this problem over and over again on this forum and you know some of the members that have seen it personally and trust their opinions, you don't need any other proof then that. My sarcasm comes because I am quite tired of this same old argument and "parroting " comment, it's not the first time it has been used for someone learning on this forum and then spreading the word. That's what everyone in life does that cares enough to help others with what they have learned. The proof this forum has is in the many, many threads, by new members worried because their torts eyes are screwed up!! All seems good, except, the ******* coil bulb. Many have come back to let us know,that the bulb has been replaced and the tort is now getting better. Why not get the proof from the companies themselves that their bulbs are actually safe. Would you believe their proof? I sure wouldn't. They have a lot too lose if they were to tell the truth. We, on the other hand have nothing to lose by not using those bulbs. We do have our torts eyes to lose should we use it, possibly. Not a gamble I want to take and I don't want others to take it either. I will let them know what those bulbs continue to do and then they can make their choice.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 11, 2014)

On a semi-related note, what are the perceived advantages of a coil bulb? What is the argument *to* use them, opposed to a linear florescent or the UV flood lamps? 

I promise, I am not trying to be snarky... I genuinely do not know what reasons one advocates for the use of CFLs.

Also, is the concern just for the coil bulbs of the tuning fork looking ones too?


----------



## wellington (Aug 11, 2014)

All I know about why anyone would push them or use them is because they are so cheap. Now that I just said that, I guess you get what you pay for.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 11, 2014)

Doing some rudimentary searching, are they really that cost effective, because it looks like they need to be replaced twice as often as the linear florescent lights..?


----------



## jaizei (Aug 11, 2014)

littleginsu said:


> On a semi-related note, what are the perceived advantages of a coil bulb? What is the argument *to* use them, opposed to a linear florescent or the UV flood lamps?
> 
> I promise, I am not trying to be snarky... I genuinely do not know what reasons one advocates for the use of CFLs.
> 
> Also, is the concern just for the coil bulbs of the tuning fork looking ones too?



Why are MVBs available in different wattages? Why are linear fluorescent lamps available in different lengths?

Options.


----------



## D3sirable (Aug 12, 2014)

maggie3fan said:


> I had a yearling Sulcata (Tony Stewart) who was blinded about 5 years ago from a spiral type bulb. His pen mate got bad eyes but by then I was picking up on it so I moved him out of that habitat. To my knowledge he can see fine now. But Tony Stewart was adopted out and I don't have any idea where or how he is....I've just seen or heard about so much eye damage right here on TFO as well as in my own herd. I won't use a coil bulb, no matter how safe someone says they are...


So not only Tony lost his eyes, he also lost his owner. Because he got blinded you didn't want him anymore and adopted him out? That's very sad


----------



## Maverick (Aug 13, 2014)

mikeh said:


> The "common sense" explanation for horizontal orientation quoted directly from Arcadia Manufacturer under product safety.
> 
> " Lamps should be fitted horizontally over the enclosure and ideally not vertically inside of a viv. Light is emitted all the way around the lamp and vertical installation means that the light is produced around the lamp at an un-natural angle and may present glare issues to the animal and keeper. Remember the sun is above us, so should light sources for reptiles."
> 
> Worth noting is that Arcadia, one of the most comprehensive reptile UVB light companies does not offer spiral (coil type) CFLs at all.



I believe they are saying not to mount a tube style vertically on the side of the your enclosure, mount it horizontally from the top. As you pointed out.. They don't make coil bulbs(for whatever reason, probably cost.) Why would they have information on how to mount them on there website?


----------



## Maverick (Aug 13, 2014)

anyhow


maggie3fan said:


> I had a yearling Sulcata (Tony Stewart) who was blinded about 5 years ago from a spiral type bulb. His pen mate got bad eyes but by then I was picking up on it so I moved him out of that habitat. To my knowledge he can see fine now. But Tony Stewart was adopted out and I don't have any idea where or how he is....I've just seen or heard about so much eye damage right here on TFO as well as in my own herd. I won't use a coil bulb, no matter how safe someone says they are...


I'm not picking on anyone just quoted as a example, the tort had an issue and the entire habitat was changed. How are you sure it was the light? Then many people read that and call it proof of burned eyes.
I'm not advocating coil bulbs... I read about them here and took the one I had back to be safe, of coarse.
But I want to understand.... What is it about coil bulbs that burns eyes and a high power mvb 12" away does not? Is the intensity? Focus? I've read in this forum that a beam of radiation is being emitted from the end, which seems unlikely to me, but I've been wrong before.....


----------



## Team Gomberg (Aug 13, 2014)

D3sirable said:


> So not only Tony lost his eyes, he also lost his owner. Because he got blinded you didn't want him anymore and adopted him out? That's very sad



@maggie3fan Maggie is wonderful lady who has a history with foster/rescue. 

I highly doubt your accusation of her "getting rid of the blind tort because she didn't want him", is a correct one.


----------



## mikeh (Aug 13, 2014)

Maverick said:


> I believe they are saying not to mount a tube style vertically on the side of the your enclosure, mount it horizontally from the top. As you pointed out.. They don't make coil bulbs(for whatever reason, probably cost.) Why would they have information on how to mount them on there website?



1) They make standard non-coil CFLs, the quote is CFL product specific. 

2)Your cost theory doesn't make sense as CLFs are not more expensive then other UVB lights.


----------



## Maverick (Aug 13, 2014)

mikeh said:


> 1) They make standard non-coil CFLs, the quote is CFL product specific.
> 
> 2)Your cost theory doesn't make sense as CLFs are not more expensive then other UVB lights.


So in your opinion the non coil type OK because Arcadia makes them? Just trying to "make sense" ...sigh
Manufacturing is not the only cost in bringing a product to market, but I'm pretty sure you already know that.


----------



## Tom (Aug 13, 2014)

Maverick said:


> anyhow
> I'm not picking on anyone just quoted as a example, the tort had an issue and the entire habitat was changed. How are you sure it was the light? Then many people read that and call it proof of burned eyes.



There have been many instances both in my personal life and on this forum, where the only changing variable was the coil bulb. Just one example that I have shared before in these discussions: We have some family friends that we socialize with regularly. One of their kids is heavily into reptiles and her and I share stories. She told me her beardie (an adult now, but raised by her) was not eating and his eyes were "puffy" and he was swiping at them. I had seen this dragon many times before and he was always healthy. She regularly takes him outside for sunshine and always has. I could see no reason for the problem, and then I look over at her desk nearby and there is the empty package for a coil bulb. I asked when did you get the new bulb. "Two days ago." I asked, "When did the problem start?" "Two days ago", she said. She told me the Petco salesperson told her he need a UV bulb and sold her that one. I lifted up the light hood and there it was. We immediately turned it off and removed it. She returned it for a refund and told the salesperson what happened and apparently she was not the first. Within a few days her beardie returned to normal, started eating and the swelling and irritation went away, never to return. No other variable was changed. Not diet, not substrate, nothing. This was about two or three years ago. I saw other cases prior, and I've seen more cases since.

What conclusion would you draw? The animal was fine for years. Add a coil bulb and the eyes swell up, get irritated and the animal goes off food and appears to be highly distressed. Remove the coil bulb, change nothing else, and the animal returns to normal within a week or so and stays that way for years after. What conclusion would you draw from personally seeing MANY situations just like this?

What more proof is needed. Do you, or anyone else, think we are lying and just making stuff up? Why would we do that? Do you, or anyone else, think we are too stupid and unscientific to draw simple cause and effect conclusions like any other human being of average or better intelligence? I don't say these things lightly. I don't make assertions with no basis in reality or fact. At some point we all decide certain people are credible and can be believed when they speak. Clearly I (and others) have not met your (or some others) standard of credibility yet. Fair enough. I am still going to do my best to warn the people who do find me credible, and try to prevent more reptile eyes from being burned by these bulbs.


----------



## Tom (Aug 13, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> While we're talking about these sorts of risks and dangers: the lithium-ion batteries in your notebook, phones, and other gadgets are very dangerous. Under certain circumstances they can produce toxic fumes and catch fire. People have been killed by them already. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend using notebooks, phones, etc. (besides, the radiation produced by phones might possibly cause cancer, too!)



I understand your desire to use analogies to illustrate your point. I frequently use this technique too. But your analogies are WAYYYYYY too far fetched. I and everyone I know have been using cell phones for, what 15 years now? Since the mid 90's. Do you know how many I've seen emit toxic fumes, catch fire, or kill anyone? None. Not a single instance. Ever. Is it physically possible? Sure.

By contrast a relatively small percentage of the people I know use coil type UV bulbs over reptiles. Yet I have personally seen many cases, like the one related in the above post, where they have burned a reptiles eyes, not even counting the cases I've seen here on the forum, which are admittedly unverifiable in most cases, but it sure adds up to an awful lot of coincidence.


----------



## wellington (Aug 13, 2014)

And here is a brand new story about the coil bulbs. http://www.tortoiseforum.org/threads/recovering-blind-hermanns-another-coil-bulb-story.98643/
Yes, they are still out there and causing problems!


----------



## wellington (Aug 13, 2014)

wellington said:


> And here is a brand new story about the coil bulbs. http://www.tortoiseforum.org/threads/recovering-blind-hermanns-another-coil-bulb-story.98643/
> Yes, they are still out there and causing problems!


Or, have they not really been fixed at all? Hmmm


----------



## Maverick (Aug 13, 2014)

Tom said:


> There have been many instances both in my personal life and on this forum, where the only changing variable was the coil bulb. Just one example that I have shared before in these discussions: We have some family friends that we socialize with regularly. One of their kids is heavily into reptiles and her and I share stories. She told me her beardie (an adult now, but raised by her) was not eating and his eyes were "puffy" and he was swiping at them. I had seen this dragon many times before and he was always healthy. She regularly takes him outside for sunshine and always has. I could see no reason for the problem, and then I look over at her desk nearby and there is the empty package for a coil bulb. I asked when did you get the new bulb. "Two days ago." I asked, "When did the problem start?" "Two days ago", she said. She told me the Petco salesperson told her he need a UV bulb and sold her that one. I lifted up the light hood and there it was. We immediately turned it off and removed it. She returned it for a refund and told the salesperson what happened and apparently she was not the first. Within a few days her beardie returned to normal, started eating and the swelling and irritation went away, never to return. No other variable was changed. Not diet, not substrate, nothing. This was about two or three years ago. I saw other cases prior, and I've seen more cases since.
> 
> What conclusion would you draw? The animal was fine for years. Add a coil bulb and the eyes swell up, get irritated and the animal goes off food and appears to be highly distressed. Remove the coil bulb, change nothing else, and the animal returns to normal within a week or so and stays that way for years after. What conclusion would you draw from personally seeing MANY situations just like this?
> 
> What more proof is needed. Do you, or anyone else, think we are lying and just making stuff up? Why would we do that? Do you, or anyone else, think we are too stupid and unscientific to draw simple cause and effect conclusions like any other human being of average or better intelligence? I don't say these things lightly. I don't make assertions with no basis in reality or fact. At some point we all decide certain people are credible and can be believed when they speak. Clearly I (and others) have not met your (or some others) standard of credibility yet. Fair enough. I am still going to do my best to warn the people who do find me credible, and try to prevent more reptile eyes from being burned by these bulbs.


No... I didn't call you or anyone else stupid, unintelligent or accuse anyone of making things up. I also didn't try to use sarcasm to belittle your comments, didn't imply anyone wasn't making sense or anything like that. So please stop trying to characterize my comments as such.
I ask you the same question, if someone has been using these bulbs since they appeared on the market, has never had a problem, has never seen a problem has never even heard it mentioned until this forum are they just making it up? Did they just get lucky? Did the countless people using these bulbs all get lucky? Even if all the eye problems in this forum were all actually bulb related, that number I believe is such a small percentage of the people using the bulbs its hard believe the the bulb is actually the cause.
I'll ask again is there anything other than perception to lend evidence that the bulbs are the cause. I get that we're all here for torts, anyone can give any advice they like. My issue is that this bulb thing is being put out there like a proven fact, and then repeated over and over. When the numbers and my perception, from my point of view point the other way.


----------



## wellington (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't understand what you want. We should just all go,with your perception and just figure they are all good and let's not warn people? Did you read the latest thread concerning this bulb and a blind hermanns? I think you are asking for something that isn't possible. If you think,they are okay, then use them. Those of us who do not think they are okay, will not use them and will keep warning people. The latest thread about them blinding a tortoise and Toms first hand knowledge should be enough. How many tortoises and other reptiles do,you need to be blinded before you stop defending them? I don't get it, you, or what you are wanting.


----------



## Tom (Aug 13, 2014)

Maverick said:


> No... I didn't call you or anyone else stupid, unintelligent or accuse anyone of making things up. I also didn't try to use sarcasm to belittle your comments, didn't imply anyone wasn't making sense or anything like that. So please stop trying to characterize my comments as such.



I didn't accuse you of saying those things, it was questions. I'm trying to understand why you don't believe what you are being told. Why is it not credible to you? You think swollen eyes and obvious pain or discomfort are "my perception"? How is that not fact? The only thing that makes sense is that you simply don't believe that I have seen what I've seen, and I'm asking you to explain why you don't believe me. That is why I asked if you perceive me as stupid or unable to discern fact from fiction in a reasonable sense of the word. I'm not intending to offend your sensibilities. I'm attempting to understand your point of view.


----------



## jaizei (Aug 13, 2014)

wellington said:


> I don't understand what you want. We should just all go,with your perception and just figure they are all good and let's not warn people? Did you read the latest thread concerning this bulb and a blind hermanns? I think you are asking for something that isn't possible. If you think,they are okay, then use them. Those of us who do not think they are okay, will not use them and will keep warning people. The latest thread about them blinding a tortoise and Toms first hand knowledge should be enough. How many tortoises and other reptiles do,you need to be blinded before you stop defending them? I don't get it, you, or what you are wanting.



So in the other thread, it was stated that a knowledgeable person used the bulb correctly, including a burn in period? How high was the bulb mounted? What type of reflector? If you can not answer those questions, then you can not definitively blame the bulb. It is confirmation bias leading you to jump to conclusions. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the number of problems is extremely small compared to the number of lamps sold; doesn't this support the idea that any problem is caused by something other than the bulb itself? If someone uses a product wrong, the problem doesn't lie with the product.


----------



## Maggie Cummings (Aug 13, 2014)

D3sirable said:


> So not only Tony lost his eyes, he also lost his owner. Because he got blinded you didn't want him anymore and adopted him out? That's very sad



*That's not fair in the least. *I operated a small turtle and tortoise rescue in a small town. When someone brought me a chelonia, I made sure it was healthy and found a home for it. Tony was never mine. I had him and 2 others since they hatched, but I just let them hang around because I love babies. I had already found one a home, now I just had to work on Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart.
I noticed both had their eyes kinda squished shut looking swollen and neither were eating very good. I used Terramycin eye ointment after the Vet saw him, and I have to tell you the hardest part of that whole thing was the pain the little guy went thru. In the morning his eyes would be hurting so bad he'd have tears flowing down his face and was frothing at the mouth. So I would make some luke warm tea water in a soaking dish, then after he'd rubbed the heck out of his eyes underwater, and soaked for a while I would put warm tea bags on his eyes while the Terramycin ointment did it's thing. It was pretty horrible. I pretty much kept Terramycin eye ointment in his eyes 3 or 4 times a day. I put warm poultices with different organics in it. I worked on that little Sulcata for almost 2 years. I taught him how to find his food. How to get around his pen and where his hide was. I spent a lot more time with him then simply trying to get rid of the eye damage. I had a Vet bill in the thousands, then a woman saw him and wanted him and away he went. 
Most of my animals are special needs animals. I have a 3 legged box turtle, another ornata shes another one that's blind, and Eastern Box turtle who's nictitating (SP) membrane is all swollen up and hinders her vision. I have a desert type tortoise who is 5 years old and has abscessed sinuses and only one nostril. His sinus' are full of fluid. He's been treated with every antibiotic know to man. In the mean time I make

time. I never had any idea on keeping Tony Stewart. I already have smaller tortoises and a 150 pound Sulcata. I simply have no room to keep anybody new. Any deformity on a tortoise is alright with me. I have always taken the animals that weren't pretty enough for others, it's personality I like...Look at Bob...I have never ever turned away an animal who needed help.
As far as the bulbs, it's my understanding that too much of the chemical (starts with a 'P') flows out of the end of the bulb.It should be fitted 12 inches above the soil and make sure it doesn't point down, And that right there is about as scientific as I get....adios...


----------



## Tom (Aug 13, 2014)

Maverick said:


> I ask you the same question, if someone has been using these bulbs since they appeared on the market, has never had a problem, has never seen a problem has never even heard it mentioned until this forum are they just making it up? Did they just get lucky? Did the countless people using these bulbs all get lucky?



In a word, *YES! *People using these bulbs without issue have gotten lucky. Either the bulb was too far, the UV was somehow screened out, the internal coating of the bulb remained intact during shipping, etc. It has already been stated in this discussion and many other that most of these bulbs do not cause an issue. The issue is how many of the DO cause a problem in relation to other alternatives that don't cause these problems. I don't even want to guess what the ratio of harmless coil bulbs to damaging coil bulbs is. It might be 100 to 1, or it might be 10,000 to 1. Suppose it is only 10,000 to 1. If a million bulbs are sold, that means 100 animals (or 200 eyeballs) will be burned, blinded, and/or hurt. That is too many for me. If the ratio is actually closer to 100 to 1 (which I suspect, but cannot prove) then you'd have 10,000 animals with 20,000 burned eyeballs for every million sold.

Again, to use TBH's analogy, I have NEVER seen spontaneous combustion of a cell phone or damage from a long tube type UV bulb or and MVB bulb. In contrast, I've seen lots of damaged reptile eyes from coil bulbs.

If you had seen what I say I have seen, what would you do? What would you say to people?


----------



## wellington (Aug 13, 2014)

We have not, that I know of, gotten every little tiny detail on the exact way these bulbs have been used. However, what have we gotten from the company? Oh, that they fixed the problem. Where's their proof? The fact is, the one common denominator among all the members of this forum that has had eye problems and that were using this type bulb, has not had eye problems since the said bulb (common denominator) has been removed. This is just this forum. Other forums, like the Chameleon forum has also had many with the same bulb/eye problems.
If these bulbs are to be used so exact, then I do believe the company making these bulbs should insure that every store, employee and management educate and make all attempts possible, that the retailers selling these bulbs are giving out the correct information, which we all know is not happening on the part of the company nor the retailer. Now, I have replaced many bulbs, MVB and tube fluorescents, for both my lizards, frogs and tortoises. I have never worried about a burn in period, nor worried about the fixture I was putting it in, if I were hanging it horizontal, vertical, or any other way, as the fixture and the bulb itself takes the thinking out if it. I have not had a single problem with lights and bulbs. These bulbs not only are still damaging tortoises and other reptiles eyes, but they were made to fit into most any fixture, like the common house coil bulb fits into your lamp, which is horizontal. 
Neither side has the proof you and others like you are asking for. Not this forum and not the company making these bulbs. However, do you not feel that as a forum member, that has seen these problems, at least on here, has the knowledge that the company admitted in the past they had problems, that know one can really confirm that all the old bulbs are gone and that the new bulbs are 100% safe, do you not feel a little obligated to at least give the new members, that are coming here asking for advice, and hoping to get some good advice they can understand, do you not think, if nothing else, that the info on these bulbs should be told to them and then they can make their own decision on whether to use them or not? I still really don't understand the hell bent attitude for defending these bulbs, when if nothing else, there has been a known problem that no one can prove has been fixed!


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 13, 2014)

Maverick said:


> I ask you the same question, if someone has been using these bulbs since they appeared on the market, has never had a problem, has never seen a problem has never even heard it mentioned until this forum are they just making it up?



Here are a few observations from other sources, albeit several years old.
http://www.iherp.com/Answers/ReptileProblem.aspx?Id=7037
http://www.uvguide.co.uk/phototherapyphosphor.htm
http://www.chameleonforums.com/subject-coil-uvb-bulbs-36225/

And I am positive there are many more sources, for and against.

It appears all-in-all, no one knows if the problem has been corrected... and, again, when it comes to the health of those in our care, we should air on the side of caution, no?


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 13, 2014)

Tom said:


> In a word, *YES! *People using these bulbs without issue have gotten lucky. Either the bulb was too far, the UV was somehow screened out, the internal coating of the bulb remained intact during shipping, etc. It has already been stated in this discussion and many other that most of these bulbs do not cause an issue. The issue is how many of the DO cause a problem in relation to other alternatives that don't cause these problems. I don't even want to guess what the ratio of harmless coil bulbs to damaging coil bulbs is. It might be 100 to 1, or it might be 10,000 to 1. Suppose it is only 10,000 to 1. If a million bulbs are sold, that means 100 animals (or 200 eyeballs) will be burned, blinded, and/or hurt. That is too many for me. If the ratio is actually closer to 100 to 1 (which I suspect, but cannot prove) then you'd have 10,000 animals with 20,000 burned eyeballs for every million sold.
> 
> Again, to use TBH's analogy, I have NEVER seen spontaneous combustion of a cell phone or damage from a long tube type UV bulb or and MVB bulb. In contrast, I've seen lots of damaged reptile eyes from coil bulbs.
> 
> If you had seen what I say I have seen, what would you do? What would you say to people?




I *think* the reason why we see the coil bulbs being the culprit more often than not is because TortoiseForum.org is a high ranking search result, and my guess would be that more people who have tortoise eye problems and Googling to determine out why, are finding the forum. So, our testing pool may be narrowed by the tortoise already being ill... 

Meaning, people who experience no issues and have perfectly healthy tortoises may never find themselves here, right? BUT, I feel, for me, there are enough numbers of people who have and still do run into problems with these bulbs, is more than enough to cause me to not risk it.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 13, 2014)

Likewise, I am positive there are occurrences where the tortoise dies or is returned to the seller... Without ever determining if the cfl bulb was the cause.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 13, 2014)

So I think I'm gonna join in on this debate. It is MY tortoise that is CURRENTLY having vision issues. Since everyone seems to have so many questions, let me try to answer a few of them. But first, let me tell you my background. I am a registered veterinary technician in the state of north Carolina. I have worked for 4 different exotic DVm's in both tn and nc. And I have personally seen over 50 cases of reptiles(geckos, dragons, chameleons, turtle/tortoise) with eye issues that were highly suspected to be caused by the lighting used. I didn't feel it was necessary to divulge personal info like that until I read through this thread. Now, on to the specifics of my setup. My hermanns is actually 1 yr and 4 months old. The dome light is mounted 11-12 inches away from the substrate, depending on how it gets shifted around. I was out of town a few weeks ago, I will try to find the exact day the bulb was put in, but it went out and I told my mom to go to the store and purchase a new mvb. Btw, the bulb that has been used the entire time prior is power sun mvb 100w, and NOTHING else was changed in the husbandry or care of my tortoise. 1 week ago I started getting concerned because of behavior/eating changes, and I thought his eyes looked a little off but I tried not to overreact. By friday I really started getting worried and began investigating, which is when I found the coil bulb. Because of my personal experience with these bulbs, I immediately turned it off. Then I called the vet that I used to work for and explained the situation. He examined him on Saturday, and we did multiple tests to try to make sure that was the cause. 1. No signs of any respiratory or ocular infection. 2. After staining his eyes, no corneal abrasions or ulcers. I was told to get ophthalmic saline solution as well as artificial tears, exact brand is inside. He is starting to regain some vision, but not complete as of yet. The only reason I posted on this forum was because I was hoping to hear from someone who had experience with these issues specifically in juvenile tortoises. So please feel free to ask me anything that you would like to know, since this was a brand new bulb, purchased a few weeks ago. So obviously the issue is not fixed.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 13, 2014)

as a side note, I can honestly say that while these bulbs may not cause issues 100% of the time, they are at the very least unpredictable. Also, when I went into petco on Friday night, absolutely furious, I was told by 2 different employees that a lot of people return those bulbs after having issues with them. and after talking to my vet, he agreed that use of the oil uvb bulbs and very contradictory and he does not recommend them.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 13, 2014)

Oddly enough, places like Petsmart and Petco would probably be great sources to gather data (e.g., how many bulbs returned, reptiles returned, returned reason, customer complaints)


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 13, 2014)

that's true, I kinda doubt corporate would just give out that kind of information though. also, at petco atleast they wanted me to fill out a form and put a specific reason for returning it, but as I was pretty upset they said that I didn't have to and that most people did not put a reason for returning. but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.


----------



## Tom (Aug 13, 2014)

littleginsu said:


> Oddly enough, places like Petsmart and Petco would probably be great sources to gather data (e.g., how many bulbs returned, reptiles returned, returned reason, customer complaints)



I may be able to help with this question, though I know some will question my findings and possibly my integrity no matter what I find. It just so happens that I'm friends with the managers of two different Petcos. I will try to reach them tomorrow and ask them about this. They are both really nice people and I know they will be honest with me about it, as long as I promise not to rat them out for telling me.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 13, 2014)

Tom said:


> I may be able to help with this question, though I know some will question my findings and possibly my integrity no matter what I find. It just so happens that I'm friends with the managers of two different Petcos. I will try to reach them tomorrow and ask them about this. They are both really nice people and I know they will be honest with me about it, as long as I promise not to rat them out for telling me.



That would be awesome! I just figured since they are probably one of the main resellers of reptile and reptile supplies...they with have a much larger data pool.


----------



## Jabuticaba (Aug 14, 2014)

wellington said:


> Search the forum you will find many threads of eye problems and the OP was using the coil bulbs. The most recent is not yet a year old. Just because they are so cheap is the reason most people wants to use them. I and most of us here want to do better for our torts then saving a few bucks while putting our torts eyes at risk. Better to not use them at all then take a chance. Btw, can't find it, but if you do a google search, you may find where the regular coil house bulb has been known to cause problems in humans and they are just regular cfl bulbs, no uvb



Before I even had torts, I bought a 15w coil bulb for myself to treat SAD. Up until then, I had only used the tubes meant for reptiles as well. I had the bulb in a fixture above my desk, 2 feet above my head. Boy, did they ever burn my eyes! Twenty minutes of reading was all I could take of it. It was a few days later that I figured it out it was the bulb. I didn't want to throw it out, so I put it in a ceiling fixture, in my kitchen, and it's fine there. I've never used a regular coil bulb that close, so I can't say they have the same effect. 


May, Aussies, & THBs
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

wellington said:


> I still really don't understand the hell bent attitude for defending these bulbs, when if nothing else, there has been a known problem that no one can prove has been fixed!



After reviewing this thread, I don't think you are seeing people 'hell bent' on defending these bulbs as much as you are hearing frustration with people that without data, research, or first hand experience are making blanket statements of fact. This would be the aforementioned 'parroting'. If you don't like the label, perhaps qualify your statements. 

As to the subject, one source material was Men's Health (something I clearly never read, and can prove it, should it come to that) which itself quoted the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values, a copy of which lives on my desk. This is the annual compendium of quantified acceptable human exposures to chemical and physical hazards. Due to its species-specific focus, the numbers are of limited utility (i.e. reptile bulbs are supposed to generate UV unlike home use bulbs) but some of the mechanisms involved seem relevant. 
For example, the primary hazard in broadband incoherent sources is photo keratitis, primarily in undetected wavelengths, as the aversion response is not triggered. This is counter intuitive in regards to UV reptile lamia as reptiles are tetrachromates and in fact see into the UVA and UVB. (Bowmaker, J.K. 1991. The evolution of vertebrate visual pigments and photoreceptors, p.63-81. In Cronly-Dillon, J.R. and Gregory, R.L. Vision and Visual Dysfunction Vol. 2: Evolution of the Eye and Visual System, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.)

The closest relevant graph I have is of a starling, fortunately the relevant opsin is conserved so is illustrative. 





In this case, the detection in the 300nm range corresponds with that which is biochemically active in Vitamin D synthesis. Given all that, the questions would be 1) if the UVB is too bright, why isn't it simply avoided? In this scenario, the expectation is that affected torts would burrow or hide, rather than suffer damage. 
2) why is the capacity for damage intermittent and independent of adherence to operating instructions. 

My hypothesis is that the answer lies in the UVC range, which is something I manage in germicidal laboratory lamps. UVC for all intents and purposes does not exist on earth due to strong scattering and absorption by O2 and O3. So in addition to higher energy, by virtue of shorter wavelength, UVC would be undetectable to the torts eye (and UVB meters) and worse, they would be attracted to the UVB that accompanies it. 

As to the proximal cause of UVC production, the mechanism of phospors is to absorb short wavelength optical radiation and fluoresce longer wavelength, usually in a broader band. So damage or discrepancy in the coating would result narrow band, short wavelength emissions. Perhaps the small tube and coiled shape increase this likelihood?

This remains a conjecture, not a conclusion, but the upside is it's testable. So with that, I'm off to damage some CFL's 

Cheers


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2014)

Martini5788 said:


> So I think I'm gonna join in on this debate. It is MY tortoise that is CURRENTLY having vision issues. Since everyone seems to have so many questions, let me try to answer a few of them. But first, let me tell you my background. I am a registered veterinary technician in the state of north Carolina. I have worked for 4 different exotic DVm's in both tn and nc. And I have personally seen over 50 cases of reptiles(geckos, dragons, chameleons, turtle/tortoise) with eye issues that were highly suspected to be caused by the lighting used. I didn't feel it was necessary to divulge personal info like that until I read through this thread. Now, on to the specifics of my setup. My hermanns is actually 1 yr and 4 months old. The dome light is mounted 11-12 inches away from the substrate, depending on how it gets shifted around. I was out of town a few weeks ago, I will try to find the exact day the bulb was put in, but it went out and I told my mom to go to the store and purchase a new mvb. Btw, the bulb that has been used the entire time prior is power sun mvb 100w, and NOTHING else was changed in the husbandry or care of my tortoise. 1 week ago I started getting concerned because of behavior/eating changes, and I thought his eyes looked a little off but I tried not to overreact. By friday I really started getting worried and began investigating, which is when I found the coil bulb. Because of my personal experience with these bulbs, I immediately turned it off. Then I called the vet that I used to work for and explained the situation. He examined him on Saturday, and we did multiple tests to try to make sure that was the cause. 1. No signs of any respiratory or ocular infection. 2. After staining his eyes, no corneal abrasions or ulcers. I was told to get ophthalmic saline solution as well as artificial tears, exact brand is inside. He is starting to regain some vision, but not complete as of yet. The only reason I posted on this forum was because I was hoping to hear from someone who had experience with these issues specifically in juvenile tortoises. So please feel free to ask me anything that you would like to know, since this was a brand new bulb, purchased a few weeks ago. So obviously the issue is not fixed.





Martini,
I read this last night and I just wasn't ready to form coherent comments after a long work day, but I've had some time to think more about what you wrote here. No surprises here for me and thank you for contributing to the discussion.

To the folks who require proof that does not exist for a variety of practical reasons, I wish to ask: Is what Martini has posted here proof enough for you guys? Does it hold any sway at all? Here is an experienced RVT who has seen upwards of 50 cases of this and worked with veterinarians to confirm a diagnosis, or at least attempt to confirm a diagnosis. Surely you don't think that Martini and all 4 of the vets he/she has worked with just willy nilly jumped to superstitious conclusions the way some of us tortoise forum members seem to in your minds? I'm not asking you to completely capitulate or give up your argument based on a single typed paragraph. I'm just asking if the testimony of a RVT and four vets lends any credence to the argument that I and several other forum members are trying to make.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

I think your question is specific to some previous posters, but I'll answer anyway; yes of course it lends credence. How could it not?
Also, before I start breaking stuff, has anyone experienced this situation (photokeratitis) with long tube fluorescents or MVBs?)


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Also, before I start breaking stuff, has anyone experienced this situation (photokeratitis) with long tube fluorescents or MVBs?)



I have not ever seen any eye problems from long florescent tubes or MVBs.

And thank you for you contributions to this debate. I hope you will be able to shed some light on the subject. HA! Get it? Shed some light...

Seriously though, I will try to get my hands on one the the bulbs that has actually done damage. Possibly a return that comes back to one of my friends at Petco. If I ship it to you at my own cost will you test it and share the results with us? Perhaps with your skill set and equipment we can finally discern exactly what the mechanism behind the damage is. In my mind, there is no question that damage occurs from some of these bulbs, but my opponents in this argument want to know the exact mechanism behind how, why and when the damage occurs. It would be great to be able to satisfy those questions.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

zeno- I remember 2 cases of bearded dragons that I saw about a year apart, that had issues when the owners switched to MVB, but that was also there only source of heat and they were incredibly close to it, and also had ongoing separate issues. the bulb was in question to possibly contribute to the overall issues, but definitely not the main cause or the only change that was made in terms of husbandry, etc.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

so, I decided to go on VIN, which is a veterinary online network. and there is no debate AT ALL on whether the compact/coil UVB bulbs cause eye issues. No one argues that, without question, they are not recommended. And that is consistent throughout the country. I can not post a link, because it is a private network. But I can ask if I can quote it.

In addition to that, most reptiles will thermoregulate BEFORE they photoregulate.


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2014)

Martini5788 said:


> so, I decided to go on VIN, which is a veterinary online network. and there is no debate AT ALL on whether the compact/coil UVB bulbs cause eye issues. No one argues that, without question, they are not recommended. And that is consistent throughout the country. I can not post a link, because it is a private network. But I can ask if I can quote it.
> 
> In addition to that, most reptiles will thermoregulate BEFORE they photoregulate.



This is news to me. I'd like to see whatever info you are allowed to share.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

" certain bulbs can be harmful to reptiles' eyes. Coil-type bulbs are especially dangerous. I treated a baby bearded dragon with severe keratoconjunctivitis from exposure to the wrong type of UV."

this quote was taken off a thread on this network, I will not post a name; but this person has been in exotic animal medicine for 15 years

in addition to that, it seems that reptisun long tubes are recommended. that is the only specific bulb that has been mentioned


----------



## wellington (Aug 14, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> After reviewing this thread, I don't think you are seeing people 'hell bent' on defending these bulbs as much as you are hearing frustration with people that without data, research, or first hand experience are making blanket statements of fact. This would be the aforementioned 'parroting'. If you don't like the label, perhaps qualify your statements.
> 
> As to the subject, one source material was Men's Health (something I clearly never read, and can prove it, should it come to that) which itself quoted the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values, a copy of which lives on my desk. This is the annual compendium of quantified acceptable human exposures to chemical and physical hazards. Due to its species-specific focus, the numbers are of limited utility (i.e. reptile bulbs are supposed to generate UV unlike home use bulbs) but some of the mechanisms involved seem relevant.
> For example, the primary hazard in broadband incoherent sources is photo keratitis, primarily in undetected wavelengths, as the aversion response is not triggered. This is counter intuitive in regards to UV reptile lamia as reptiles are tetrachromates and in fact see into the UVA and UVB. (Bowmaker, J.K. 1991. The evolution of vertebrate visual pigments and photoreceptors, p.63-81. In Cronly-Dillon, J.R. and Gregory, R.L. Vision and Visual Dysfunction Vol. 2: Evolution of the Eye and Visual System, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.)
> ...




For you and anyone else's information. If it wasn't for all the parroting members, sharing what they have learned, this forum would not help many people. It always seems to be members that don't participate much to help others that have such an attitude about others sharing things learned. Also, for all you, everyone of you have parroted info at one time or another in your life and will continue to do so, so why not get off your high horse attitude and stop trying to demean all the members that share what they have learned.


----------



## Raymo2477 (Aug 14, 2014)

I happen to manage a Petco and have a fair amount of experience with UVB. I also was recently able to talk to a Herpetologist at ZooMed about bulbs. He said the damaging bulbs have not been sold in the US for a decade. He also said for torts the like a lot of light MVB is better than the coil type. He also recommend burning them for a week before using them on your animals.

I've never had anyone return a bulb for injury issues and I used to use them with no issues, although now I use MVB for my Hermanns and a long tube for my redfoots.

I think this issue will never die because of old stories floating around on the internet. You'll never convince them to try them, but why bother, they have their opinion and I have mine.

I just would love to see a true scientific experiment on the coil bulbs that has a large sample size and large variety of animals.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

wellington said:


> For you and anyone else's information. If it wasn't for all the parroting members, sharing what they have learned, this forum would not help many people. It always seems to be members that don't participate much to help others that have such an attitude about others sharing things learned. Also, for all you, everyone of you have parroted info at one time or another in your life and will continue to do so, so why not get off your high horse attitude and stop trying to demean all the members that share what they have learned.



Wow. It's unfortunate that the above was your takeaway. Maybe take a deep, calming breath and re-read my post. I'm not demeaning you or any of the other frequent participants. Good on you for any and all help you provide. 
However, it is not a 'high horse' position to require qualifications of statements before taking them as fact. On the contrary, it's quite self important to make unsupported, unreferenced, unqualified statements and then get angry when questioned. Which, ironically, I wasn't doing. 
Regardless, demeaning you was not my intent and I'm sorry it came across that way.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

If the dangerous bulbs have not been sold in over a decade in the united states, then why are all the cases that I have seen in practice occurred within the last 5-6 years, and the bulb that injured my tortoise was purchased a few weeks ago.


----------



## wellington (Aug 14, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Wow. It's unfortunate that the above was your takeaway. Maybe take a deep, calming breath and re-read my post. I'm not demeaning you or any of the other frequent participants. Good on you for any and all help you provide.
> However, it is not a 'high horse' position to require qualifications of statements before taking them as fact. On the contrary, it's quite self important to make unsupported, unreferenced, unqualified statements and then get angry when questioned. Which, ironically, I wasn't doing.
> Regardless, demeaning you was not my intent and I'm sorry it came across that way.



Okay, I did reread your post and I did take a deep breath. Sorry I did take it a little out of content and with attitude. I won't read and post in a rush anymore. Okay, I will try not too read and post in a rush anymore


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2014)

Raymo2477 said:


> I happen to manage a Petco and have a fair amount of experience with UVB. I also was recently able to talk to a Herpetologist at ZooMed about bulbs. He said the damaging bulbs have not been sold in the US for a decade. He also said for torts the like a lot of light MVB is better than the coil type. He also recommend burning them for a week before using them on your animals.
> 
> I've never had anyone return a bulb for injury issues and I used to use them with no issues, although now I use MVB for my Hermanns and a long tube for my redfoots.
> 
> ...



Ray, we are talking about first hand CURRENT issues, not old often repeated mythical wives tales. Did you read Martini's posts? Did you read mine? Its great that you have not had a bad one, but many other people have, and recently too.


----------



## Raymo2477 (Aug 14, 2014)

I respect the issues you've had and they are unfortunate. I do believe that the coil bulbs could cause damage, I'm just not convinced the design is bad all of the time and there aren't other issues that effect them.

Again I would like to see a large scale scientific study to put this to rest.


----------



## Abdulla6169 (Aug 14, 2014)

Raymo2477 said:


> I respect the issues you've had and they are unfortunate. I do believe that the coil bulbs could cause damage, I'm just not convinced the design is bad all of the time and there aren't other issues that effect them.
> 
> Again I would like to see a large scale scientific study to put this to rest.


If you just read this forum more you'll realize it is a scientific large scale study. If you look at all the coil threads you'll understand...


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

AbdullaAli said:


> If you just read this forum more you'll realize it is a scientific large scale study. If you look at all the coil threads you'll understand...



Hi AbdullaAli,

Unfortunately it isn't. It's a treasure trove of anecdotal evidence, but that's not the same. Too many variables, no controls, etc. 

Raymo2477- I'd like that too, but I want a mechanism to test and measure, otherwise we are left with live subject testing, which obvious no one wants. I'm working on a protocol. Well see if it pans out.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

Martini5788 said:


> zeno- I remember 2 cases of bearded dragons that I saw about a year apart, that had issues when the owners switched to MVB, but that was also there only source of heat and they were incredibly close to it, and also had ongoing separate issues. the bulb was in question to possibly contribute to the overall issues, but definitely not the main cause or the only change that was made in terms of husbandry, etc.


Thanks


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 14, 2014)

Tom said:


> I hope you will be able to shed some light on the subject. HA! Get it? Shed some light...
> .



Well played. I may take you up on your offer, but am getting lots of local responses. Stay tuned


----------



## Abdulla6169 (Aug 14, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Hi AbdullaAli,
> 
> Unfortunately it isn't. It's a treasure trove of anecdotal evidence, but that's not the same. Too many variables, no controls, etc.
> 
> Raymo2477- I'd like that too, but I want a mechanism to test and measure, otherwise we are left with live subject testing, which obvious no one wants. I'm working on a protocol. Well see if it pans out.


If people needed "actual" non anecdotal evidence, than why trust anyone? Pet stores always give useless information, vets sometimes give anecdotal advice. Its found everywhere. The fact that some don't want to rely on it isn't the smartest thing to do. If they want a study then let them go make one, just no live animals should be harmed... No one has the time & money to make an entire study... We could look at the unharmful ones, what difference will it make? It may be one of many variables. It may become tort harmful once shipped. What do we know?


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

I keep hearing it repeated that everyone wants a large scale scientific study done, and I am assuming that is because everyone wants the "real, formal" answer. but, most people don't understand what that really entails. people on this forum obviously care about their pets, and that's wonderful, but a study on live animals is taking it to a new level. Not to discount the need for more information, I understand that. But the point of this entire conversation is to promote proper care, and I'm not sure people want to know what would actually happen to the animals in the study. Just saying.


----------



## Tom (Aug 14, 2014)

Raymo2477 said:


> I respect the issues you've had and they are unfortunate. I do believe that the coil bulbs could cause damage, I'm just not convinced the design is bad all of the time and there aren't other issues that effect them.
> 
> Again I would like to see a large scale scientific study to put this to rest.



It appears you have not read most of the posts in this thread. No one is saying that the design is bad all the time or that all of them do damage. No one could ever convince you of that because it is not true. What's being debated here is that SOME of the time, SOME of these bulbs burn the eyes of the reptiles under them. Some folks are reluctant to believe this in the absence of what they consider irrefutable scientific proof, which sadly does not exist, because there is no incentive for anyone to fund such a study.


----------



## Raymo2477 (Aug 14, 2014)

It's not scientific without certain protocols followed. I still would not rule out the possibility of user error or manufacturing error as a cause. You can't use the articles here as your only evidence. As anyone can tell you someone with no issues rarely posts...those with issues post a lot. It's simple human nature.

Again it is possible that they are a problem, but it is equally possible they are not. Research is the key, but I wouldn't like to see animals injured. But then again without research we wouldn't understand dietary and humidity issues.


----------



## Abdulla6169 (Aug 14, 2014)

Raymo2477 said:


> It's not scientific without certain protocols followed. I still would not rule out the possibility of user error or manufacturing error as a cause. You can't use the articles here as your only evidence. As anyone can tell you someone with no issues rarely posts...those with issues post a lot. It's simple human nature.
> 
> Again it is possible that they are a problem, but it is equally possible they are not. Research is the key, but I wouldn't like to see animals injured. But then again without research we wouldn't understand dietary and humidity issues.


Thats the point, manufacturers have to fix this.
Either:
A- fix it 
B- remove it from the tort market & admit it had some very bad effects...
Research may take longer & be useless... You have hundreds of factors:
Age of bulb
Wattage
Brand
Shipping condition
Place in enclosure
Orientation in enclosure
Chemical differences
Physical differences
And you cant be sure it will all work...


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 14, 2014)

Raymo2477 said:


> It's not scientific without certain protocols followed. I still would not rule out the possibility of user error or manufacturing error as a cause.
> ...As anyone can tell you someone with no issues rarely posts...those with issues post a lot. It's simple human nature.



Agreed. My question is, if the product cannot be manufactured consistently to not be harmful, is it worth the risk? If is it related, somehow, to a microscopic crack in the coating that occurs from normal shipping practices, is it worth the risk? The product itself sounds like it is a huge headache to work with, burn it for a week, mount it horizontally, place it in the seventh house while Jupiter aligns with Mars, is it worth the hassle and risk?

I guess I just have lost sight of what the debate is, or why it's even debatable. There are enough first hand accounts of something causing harm and the mere fact that it appears to be completely random is enough to scare me off, but in the end, is it worth the risk?

And I can't seem to come to any other any than, no.


----------



## Martini5788 (Aug 14, 2014)

littleginsu said:


> Agreed. My question is, if the product cannot be manufactured consistently to not be harmful, is it worth the risk? If is it related, somehow, to a microscopic crack in the coating that occurs from normal shipping practices, is it worth the risk? The product itself sounds like it is a huge headache to work with, burn it for a week, mount it horizontally, place it in the seventh house while Jupiter aligns with Mars, is it worth the hassle and risk?
> 
> I guess I just have lost sight of what the debate is, or why it's even debatable. There are enough first hand accounts of something causing harm and the mere fact that it appears to be completely random is enough to scare me off, but in the end, is it worth the risk?
> 
> And I can't seem to come to any other any than, no.




Very well put. Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## Team Gomberg (Aug 14, 2014)

littleginsu said:


> , place it in the seventh house while Jupiter aligns with Mars, is it worth the hassle and risk?.



Hahaha this cracked me!


----------



## Team Gomberg (Aug 14, 2014)

Jabuticaba said:


> Before I even had torts, I bought a 15w coil bulb for myself to treat SAD. Up until then, I had only used the tubes meant for reptiles as well. I had the bulb in a fixture above my desk, 2 feet above my head. Boy, did they ever burn my eyes! Twenty minutes of reading was all I could take of it. It was a few days later that I figured it out it was the bulb. I didn't want to throw it out, so I put it in a ceiling fixture, in my kitchen, and it's fine there. I've never used a regular coil bulb that close, so I can't say they have the same effect.
> 
> 
> May, Aussies, & THBs
> IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES



I don't know what SAD is, but did I understand you correctly?

You used a coil UV bulb at your desk and it hurt _your_ eyes?!
..wow. That says something. 
And its good you mentioned you've never used a regular coil bulb at that distance to compare...but still.

I don't use artificial UV but if I did, I wouldn't use a coil bulb if someone paid me.


----------



## Yourlocalpoet (Aug 15, 2014)

Team Gomberg said:


> I don't know what SAD is, but did I understand you correctly?
> 
> You used a coil UV bulb at your desk and it hurt _your_ eyes?!
> ..wow. That says something.
> ...



SAD - Seasonal affective disorder. It's thought to happen due to a lack of exposure to sunlight when the days of the year become shorter, resulting in some people not producing enough melatonin and serotonin, thus giving them a kind of 'winter depression'. It's very common in the Nordic countries.


----------



## Abdulla6169 (Aug 15, 2014)

Jabuticaba said:


> Before I even had torts, I bought a 15w coil bulb for myself to treat SAD. Up until then, I had only used the tubes meant for reptiles as well. I had the bulb in a fixture above my desk, 2 feet above my head. Boy, did they ever burn my eyes! Twenty minutes of reading was all I could take of it. It was a few days later that I figured it out it was the bulb. I didn't want to throw it out, so I put it in a ceiling fixture, in my kitchen, and it's fine there. I've never used a regular coil bulb that close, so I can't say they have the same effect.
> 
> 
> May, Aussies, & THBs
> IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


Maybe it's the closeness & intensity. Some brands do say only for reptiles:


----------



## Yourlocalpoet (Aug 15, 2014)

I have never, and doubt I will ever use a cfl bulb. I don't even have them in my house, they terrify me and they give me headache. I remember the 'The Great Light bulb Revolt' here in the UK when Europe decided to phase out the incandescent and read all kinds of articles on the detrimental effects of these cfl bulbs. My understanding was that the problem was the phosphor coating would all too often crack and therefore leak more UV than it should.
For me, if an energy saving cfl can give _me_ headache, I ain't putting a high UVB cfl in my tortoise enclosure.


----------



## littleginsu (Aug 15, 2014)

I admit, I have the coil type bulbs in many of my fixtures, I have not noticed any adverse effects, but the fixtures encapsulate the bulbs in glass, so maybe the glass filters out the bad stuff... I hope. I have seen other CFL Light bulbs that are self-contained in a glass bulb.. I wonder if those are any safer?

Anywho, I would like to thank whoever started the thread and those who participated, it has been a stimulating and thought provoking discussion.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 15, 2014)

littleginsu said:


> I admit, I have the coil type bulbs in many of my fixtures, I have not noticed any adverse effects, but the fixtures encapsulate the bulbs in glass, so maybe the glass filters out the bad stuff... I hope. I have seen other CFL Light bulbs that are self-contained in a glass bulb.. I wonder if those are any safer?
> 
> Anywho, I would like to thank whoever started the thread and those who participated, it has been a stimulating and thought provoking discussion.



Just to be clear, is the glass part of the bulb itself, or a component of the fixture/hood assembly? This is important because glass is opaque to UV. Many CFLs for general use are now incased in glass, I expect for this reason. On the other hand, UV-specific bulbs use a quartz housing to transmit the desired UV. So the glass, whether by design or by your application is shielding the UV, which may be good if overexposure or inappropriate wavelength are present, bad if your trying to provide for vitamin D.


----------



## Tom (Aug 15, 2014)

Yourlocalpoet said:


> SAD - Seasonal affective disorder. It's thought to happen due to a lack of exposure to sunlight when the days of the year become shorter, resulting in some people not producing enough melatonin and serotonin, thus giving them a kind of 'winter depression'. It's very common in the Nordic countries.



It runs in my family. Good thing I live in one of the sunniest places on Earth!!!


----------



## Tom (Aug 15, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Just to be clear, is the glass part of the bulb itself, or a component of the fixture/hood assembly? This is important because glass is opaque to UV. Many CFLs for general use are now incased in glass, I expect for this reason. On the other hand, UV-specific bulbs use a quartz housing to transmit the desired UV. So the glass, whether by design or by your application is shielding the UV, which may be good if overexposure or inappropriate wavelength are present, bad if your trying to provide for vitamin D.



Most of the cfls in my house are of the type encased in glass. They are meant to simulate the old style "flood" bulb incandescents and fit into recessed "cans". The few that aren't are mostly surrounded by decorative glass "cans". So far these have not bothered me or my family. I pick the 5000-6500K ones because I hate the yellowish tint of the 2500K ones. Being such a cheap bastar..., uh..., I mean economically conscious fellow, I sure like the lower wattage and resultant power savings. These bulbs are also several feet or more away from us, as opposed to 12 inches away, like what might happen in some reptile enclosures.


----------



## Yourlocalpoet (Aug 15, 2014)

Tom said:


> It runs in my family. Good thing I live in one of the sunniest places on Earth!!!



Have you ever seen snow, Tom?  



Sent from my iPhone using Tortoise Forum


----------



## Tom (Aug 15, 2014)

Yourlocalpoet said:


> Have you ever seen snow, Tom?



Yes. I actually work in it from time to time. Did a whole movie in DesMoines Iowa in the dead of winter. December and January. I actually didn't mind it too much, but I wouldn't want to live that way. NOT good tortoise weather. While I was navigating ice storms in Iowa, my tortoises were walking around in the warm sunshine with their baby sitters.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 15, 2014)

Tom said:


> Most of the cfls in my house are of the type encased in glass. They are meant to simulate the old style "flood" bulb incandescents and fit into recessed "cans". The few that aren't are mostly surrounded by decorative glass "cans". So far these have not bothered me or my family. I pick the 5000-6500K ones because I hate the yellowish tint of the 2500K ones. Being such a cheap bastar..., uh..., I mean economically conscious fellow, I sure like the lower wattage and resultant power savings. These bulbs are also several feet or more away from us, as opposed to 12 inches away, like what might happen in some reptile enclosures.



The distancing issue is huge (bad pun). If the distance from source is >5x the longest dimension of the source, the irradiance is promotional to to the inverse square of the distance. 
Put simply, if the distance is halved, the irradiance doesn't double, it is squared. 
Closer proximity is called near-field radiation and no noticeable decline is detected. 

So placement as well as source amplification from reflective hoods are suspects in the eye hazard mystery.


----------



## tortadise (Aug 15, 2014)

Here's a nice study done on this. Specifically to skin and eyes. 
I stick with old uv tube bulbs. They work great, last a while, require little power, and year after decades still work great in part with outside time when weather permits. 

When we get so caught up in conspiracy theories and have to prove to one another why not to use something or why to use something. Then what's the point in having a fun peaceful hobby. I stick with the old proven good ways, and smile when enjoying my tortoises. I don't need a company trying to merchandise and cut corners for a product of a hobby that just makes them money.

This study came back with inconclusive evidence, but urged to be weary of its use, and change away from products if out of norm occur. To me that's a sign of don't use. Because we don't know how bad it could or what type of damage it can do.


http://lrt.sagepub.com/content/45/1/40.full.pdf


----------



## mike taylor (Aug 15, 2014)

Thanks Kelly you took all the he said she said out and put it on the table .


----------



## tortadise (Aug 15, 2014)

For those interested in dissecting this to another level.

Here is a paper of the ocular anatomy of testudo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1259602/?page=1
Much like humans. But you can google for humans and compare the two if you'd like. Since the study was done for human exposure.but both Chelonia and homosapia so have binocular Vision. So the study could blanket to Chelonia per say. Most of the paper on the bulbs are way beyond my comprehension and terminology and methods of just beyond my comprehension. So by all means, I layer some valid information, make you own decisions.


----------



## Jabuticaba (Aug 15, 2014)

Team Gomberg said:


> I don't know what SAD is, but did I understand you correctly?
> 
> You used a coil UV bulb at your desk and it hurt _your_ eyes?!
> ..wow. That says something.
> ...


Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, I used the coil bulb for reading at my desk, during winter. SAD = Seasonal Affective Disorder (aka winter blues), mainly caused by lack of bright light--which the brain needs in order to stop producing melatonin and start up serotonin production, in the morning--and vitamin D deficiency. The liner UVB bulbs for terrarium had really helped relieve most of my SAD symptoms, for a few years during out harsh winters, which is why I thought to try the coil bulb. And, no, I never tried using a regular coil bulb to compare because I wasn't about to risk more damage. Like someone mentioned before, it's just not worth it. (Plus, reg coil bulbs don't have UVB.) 

How do your torts get by in the winter? Are you somewhere warm, with mild enough temps that they can safely brumate? 


May, Aussies, & THBs
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## Jabuticaba (Aug 15, 2014)

AbdullaAli said:


> Maybe it's the closeness & intensity. Some brands do say only for reptiles:
> View attachment 91941


I used it according to the recommendations on the package, just like I had done--and still do--with the linear bulbs. 


May, Aussies, & THBs
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## Team Gomberg (Aug 15, 2014)

@Jabuticaba 
I've never used artificial UV because I kept torts in SoCal. Recently, I moved and now that I'm in Oregon things might change...but we'll see.

To keep this thread on topic, I just want to say thanks again for sharing your experience with the coil UV bulb. I found it enlightening


----------



## Jabuticaba (Aug 16, 2014)

Team Gomberg said:


> @Jabuticaba
> I've never used artificial UV because I kept torts in SoCal. Recently, I moved and now that I'm in Oregon things might change...but we'll see.
> 
> To keep this thread on topic, I just want to say thanks again for sharing your experience with the coil UV bulb. I found it enlightening


You're welcome. Glad to contribute my personal experience.  


May, Aussies, & THBs
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Sep 16, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> As to the subject, one source material was Men's Health (something I clearly never read, and can prove it, should it come to that) which itself quoted the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values, a copy of which lives on my desk. This is the annual compendium of quantified acceptable human exposures to chemical and physical hazards. Due to its species-specific focus, the numbers are of limited utility (i.e. reptile bulbs are supposed to generate UV unlike home use bulbs) but some of the mechanisms involved seem relevant.
> For example, the primary hazard in broadband incoherent sources is photo keratitis, primarily in undetected wavelengths, as the aversion response is not triggered. This is counter intuitive in regards to UV reptile lamia as reptiles are tetrachromates and in fact see into the UVA and UVB. (Bowmaker, J.K. 1991. The evolution of vertebrate visual pigments and photoreceptors, p.63-81. In Cronly-Dillon, J.R. and Gregory, R.L. Vision and Visual Dysfunction Vol. 2: Evolution of the Eye and Visual System, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.)
> 
> The closest relevant graph I have is of a starling, fortunately the relevant opsin is conserved so is illustrative.
> ...




And now, on with our story, with some qualification. First, I pursued this as an investigation of concept. I don't have the resources for an industry wide study. Also, the equipment used was either misappropriated from it's intended purpose or personally modified/built. We're talking about indicators here. 
Anyway, first observations of cfl bulbs, both UVB and general use, include what's called 'ugly light'. The light spectrum generated has a few very high spikes with large gaps in between. (Note: my 'spectrometer' was constructed with a diffraction grating, and a telescope so no numbers for now. I'm trying to borrow one though). This will cause headaches and eye strain even with appropriate lumens ( in humans). Secondly, the flicker rate adds insult. It varies to the point of playing havoc with a light meter if it is direct read and not displaying median values. All of the above applies to every cfl I looked at, including general use. 

As to the UVB; one of the persistent ideas I heard was that physical trauma to the bulb would change the intensity or wavelength. I only had a dozen or so to play with, but I could not generate this result and I tested all to failure. (Safety note: be careful trying this at home. Mercury vapor is definitely hazardous). 

The next line of inquiry was my own supposition that UV CFLs might be generating short wavelength UVB and potentially UVC. This I was able to verify, albeit qualitatively. Put simply, my meter is tuned to germicidal lamps, so at the extreme low end of the scale, the numbers aren't reliable. It's like measuring a hatchling on a scale calibrated to pounds. The little bump isn't readable, but in the case of these bulbs, the bump shouldn't have been there at all. 

Finally, the reflector hood creates essentially a parabolic mirror, which focuses the (at least in some cases) too-short wavelength light to a narrow beam. By altering hood and distance combinations, intensities could vary wildly between points only inches apart. 

The most frustrating aspect was the inconsistency. I don't pretend that 14 bulbs constitutes a valid sample, but the typical brands of various ages were represented and the different intensities and wavelengths was striking. 

The leading candidate then seems to be a combination of flicker/frequency that inhibits appropriate eye dilation, short wavelength emissions that are both high energy and invisible so don't trigger an aversion response, typically used with a reflector that exacerbates the potential for harm. 

That's all I have for now. 
Peace out!


Steve


----------



## THBfriend (Sep 23, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> This is counter intuitive in regards to UV reptile lamia as reptiles are tetrachromates and in fact see into the UVA and UVB.
> ...
> Given all that, the questions would be 1) if the UVB is too bright, why isn't it simply avoided?


Their eyes can see UVA, but *not* UVB, as far as I know.



zenoandthetortoise said:


> My hypothesis is that the answer lies in the UVC range, which is something I manage in germicidal laboratory lamps.


The uvguide.co.uk people measured UVC output of lamps that caused eye problems and found that UVC was insignificant at reasonable distances.



zenoandthetortoise said:


> Anyway, first observations of cfl bulbs, both UVB and general use, include what's called 'ugly light'. The light spectrum generated has a few very high spikes with large gaps in between.


The light emitted by the phosphors has a wider distribution (example: spectral output of UVB313 and UVA340 phosphors). Those thin spikes are the original mercury emissions, and that's a problem of fluorescent lamps in general, not just CFLs. *The linear tube lamps produce the same "ugly light"*. Do you have a source for the claim that "spiky" spectral distributions cause headaches and eye strain? It's usually flicker that gets blamed for that, which brings us to:



zenoandthetortoise said:


> Secondly, the flicker rate adds insult. It varies to the point of playing havoc with a light meter if it is direct read and not displaying median values. All of the above applies to every cfl I looked at, including general use.


Again, that's a problem of all fluorescent lamps in general. *The linear tubes are actually worse here*, they have a flicker rate of twice the mains frequency (e.g. 120 Hz in the US and 100 Hz in Europe) - unless they have an electronic ballast, which still isn't very common. CFLs on the other hand always have an integrated electronic ballast and use higher frequencies that flicker less. More about that here.

Anyway, thanks for your work. I agree with your conclusion that high energy, invisible UVB (and possibly UVC) light is a likely cause of the eye problems, with reflectors and insufficient distance exacerbating the potential for harm.


----------



## tortoise_luvergirl (Sep 27, 2014)

Those coil bulbs are even dangerous for HUMANS eyes! I mentioned awhile back when I first started out that I had this type of bulb for my tortoise to my nuero opthamologist. he told me.. GET RID OF IT! you're destroying your eyes. I was also warned never to look at her UV tube either so I use my prescription sunglasses around UV sources. any CFL really has always given horrible headaches, I can't imagine what they do to reptiles.


----------



## THBfriend (Sep 27, 2014)

tortoise_luvergirl said:


> Those coil bulbs are even dangerous for HUMANS eyes!


Sorry, that is patently untrue, and if your opthamologist actually said that, then he/she should back it up with evidence / scientific studies. They are no more dangerous than dihydrogen monoxide, for example. 
As far as I know, there is no study that clearly links CFLs and migraines. It is true that flickering lights can induce headache in highly sensitive individuals. But as I wrote above, the flicker of CFLs should be several kilohertz and therefore be imperceptible. If a CFL flickers noticeably, then it's nearing the end of its life and should be replaced, or it's cheap crap and should be returned. Again, linear tube fluorescent lamps generally flicker much worse.
Looking at UV tubes as used for tortoises also won't damage your eyes, unless you're closer to them than a few feet and stare at them for extended periods of time. If you have a UV hypersensitivity condition, things are different, of course.

Your last sentence is curious, as it implies that reptiles are more sensitive than humans. Bold claim. Here's a study that showed chicken actually prefer the light of CFLs.


----------



## smarch (Oct 24, 2014)

I used CFLs for my first 2 years with Nank and didn't even know of the problems until this year when I decided to give it up. Although I wonder... my first CFL wasn't a coil, it was the ZooMed Repti-Sun and instead of a coil it was 2 attached loops, the same is in my fishtank at a smaller wattage. But Nank never had issues, I know the most issues seem to arise in hatchlings when they do arise, but either way after reading it I decided why risk it if people here have seen what it does and don't think its safe. I wouldn't consider a tube florescent at this point either, for a part of the reason I gave up the CFL that didn't regard health, I dot like fluorescent light on my eyes, so why should I force Nank to live under it? At least I can (kinda) escape it if I need to, he wouldn't.


----------



## tortoise_luvergirl (Oct 28, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> Sorry, that is patently untrue, and if your opthamologist actually said that, then he/she should back it up with evidence / scientific studies. They are no more dangerous than dihydrogen monoxide, for example.
> As far as I know, there is no study that clearly links CFLs and migraines. It is true that flickering lights can induce headache in highly sensitive individuals. But as I wrote above, the flicker of CFLs should be several kilohertz and therefore be imperceptible. If a CFL flickers noticeably, then it's nearing the end of its life and should be replaced, or it's cheap crap and should be returned. Again, linear tube fluorescent lamps generally flicker much worse.
> Looking at UV tubes as used for tortoises also won't damage your eyes, unless you're closer to them than a few feet and stare at them for extended periods of time. If you have a UV hypersensitivity condition, things are different, of course.
> 
> Your last sentence is curious, as it implies that reptiles are more sensitive than humans. Bold claim. Here's a study that showed chicken actually prefer the light of CFLs.


 I can't stand flourescents of any nature.. So i got willow light fixtures with deep domes/covers so it will shine in her enclosure and not in my face since I share a room with her. I use a mercury vapor and a UV tube.. but try not to look at either since my eyes are very light sensitive. at night I use either a red or black heat bulb so we can both sleep.


----------



## Maggie Cummings (Dec 2, 2014)

THBfriend said:


> People here apparently believe that all compact fluorescent UV lamps are categorically bad. I'd like to see some proof for that.
> 
> As far as I know, certain older lamps had a flawed spectral output, too much short wavelength UV at dangerously high intensities. But that should have been fixed by now... Here's a website I found that has details.





THBfriend said:


> Says who? Claims like that need to be backed by evidence.
> 
> 
> Pity that you don't have a source. If I do a google search, I can find all sorts of stuff that isn't necessarily true...
> ...



THBFriend...

1. I would never drive a GM to start with.
2. I don't need any freaking link to some study that says coil bulbs are alright by someone who did not have an animal blinded by one of those SOB's.
This is old ****, but *I personally*, had 1 Sulcata yearling totally blinded, a pen mate was partially blinded and the third had eye damage
that lots of money and time fixed. I now care for blind box turtles and other special needs chelonia. So for me...3 blinded or semi blinded animals who are gonna have a difficult and probably poor quality life are more than enough proof.

quote " you have to admit that it's also a bit irrational." end quote. Frankly, I am not the least bit irrational. I lived it, you've only talked about about it or read about it. Until you personally have had tortoises or turtles blinded by a coil bulb you have _*NO*_ say in the matter. I have and I especially have seen the pain those bulbs caused in those animals. The pain is intense. Tony Stewart's eyes hurt so bad he would lay his head on the substrate and run at his nose, and froth at his mouth. It was horrid. So like I said, until YOU have lived it, you got nothing but bad opinion...

* @THBfriend*
@Tom


----------



## THBfriend (Dec 5, 2014)

maggie3fan said:


> 1. I would never drive a GM to start with.
> 2. I don't need any freaking link to some study that says coil bulbs are alright by someone who did not have an animal blinded by one of those SOB's.
> This is old ****, but *I personally*, had 1 Sulcata yearling totally blinded, a pen mate was partially blinded and the third had eye damage
> that lots of money and time fixed. I now care for blind box turtles and other special needs chelonia. So for me...3 blinded or semi blinded animals who are gonna have a difficult and probably poor quality life are more than enough proof.
> ...



1. Then substitute that with any car that you do like.
2. Your entire post is a perfect example of irrationality, based on a logical fallacy. Just because I never wrote a novel or directed a movie doesn't mean that I have no right to criticize novels and movies, or that my opinions on the matter are "bad". I have presented the scientific facts about fluorescent lamps in this topic, and the fact remains that CFLs are not categorically dangerous. At least not more so than linear tube FLs, which share most of the characteristics, and some of which have also damaged reptile eyes.


----------



## Ryan Kruse (Jan 2, 2015)

[/QUOTE] Alina, there are no studies that I know of. Who would fund it? There is no incentive for the manufacturer to spend tons of money to find out their bulbs are dangerous. They sell as many as they can make, so there is no incentive for them to look into it. There is no tortoise consumer group to fund such a study... All we have is each other and sharing our observations.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the 21st century! Unfortunately this is how the world operates. It has been mentioned time and time again on this site about many different topics. The breeders (not all), pet stores, etc. just want the money. They are more than happy to sell you $300 worth of useless crap. Sadly, the pet stores are often "educated" by the big name brands that make the useless crap to begin with. It is a big cycle


----------



## Ryan Kruse (Jan 2, 2015)

maggie3fan said:


> THBFriend...
> This is old ****, but *I personally*, had 1 Sulcata yearling totally blinded, a pen mate was partially blinded and the third had eye damage
> that lots of money and time fixed. I now care for blind box turtles and other special needs chelonia. So for me...3 blinded or semi blinded animals who are gonna have a difficult and probably poor quality life are more than enough proof.



I want to ignore whether they are good or bad for a second. I have read that people have had problems with some bad CFL's. My question, and I am asking this to be educated, is how do you know it was the bulb? It seems to me that perhaps other factors may cause such issues? Again, I don't know you or your former situation. I am just asking!


----------



## cowgirl4407 (May 4, 2015)

I dont have a study either but I ignored the info of this forum and lost a hatchling. I used the bulb on the breeders care sheet and lost one of my new little leos last week even with vet intervention. I bought the bulb that was recommended a week later all my little hatchlings behavior changed. I took out my other leo cause she was 4 inches and the other was only two inches. I thought she was being bullied by the bigger one when there behavior changed. My 4 inch is still here and doing great not hiding in the corner with her eyes closed but my other one passed. My vet who is a good rep vet couldnt find any parasites or explanation to her illness just told me to soak her and keep her warm. I use the long bulbs now I feel there is no other explanation other than it burnt the torts eyes cause he was eating and doing well before I introduced it. Two days after I put it in the enclosure they were hiding in the corner with there eyes closed. I left the little one in that enclosure with that bulb and the other tort recovered enough evidence for me.


----------

