Do I dare open this can of worms?

CFL's, Is the only reason everyone is saying to stay away from them is because I could get an old one from the store? Is there a place where I can see hard data on how today's CFL's affect the eyes of Tortoises? Saying stay away for a problem that was fixed years ago seems a bit overboard to me. If we did that to every product what has a problem, half of the stuff in your house needs to be tossed out.

I just don't like the answer, "They were bad a few years ago".

Dan the trouble maker. LOL

Every so often we still get posts from new members who have baby tortoises with bad eyes. And a bit of detective work discovers the CFL as the problem. The trouble is, even though the newer bulbs may not be bad on the eyes, there was never a recall, so the older bulbs are still in the warehouses and on the shelves. I don't have science to share, only what I've read here on the Forum posted by members with baby tortoises that have closed, sore eyes.

The other reason to not use them is that they don't provide very good UVB.

I think there may be lingering problems with cfls, but think it's just as likely lingering tort-dogma, as occurs everywhere on the internet.

Jamie

My personal opinion on CFL's (and I could be totally wrong) is it is more of a placement issue today then a radiation issue. Any bulb to close or spotlighted to a point can hurt eyes. CFL's should be used with the sides facing the area you want lit not the end.

I think the biggest problem with CFL is user error, and their variability only exacerbates that. Changing the reflector greatly changes the amount of UVB reaching tortoise level. Possibly concentrating it to dangerous levels. They are easier to mount than strips, so easier to just install without thought, possibly too close.

jsheffield said:

I think there may be lingering problems with cfls, but think it's just as likely lingering tort-dogma, as occurs everywhere on the internet.

Jamie

Click to expand...

I agree, I browse the FB pages and other websites on Tortoises and get a lot of conflicting info on all things. People get into there paradigms and cant break free.

As for the CFL's I think a major problem is this. The old style lights got hot and people would move them to a location that gave them the temp they wanted in the area being lit. CFL's being cooler could be moved a lot closer which would increase the radiation levels.

It's probably not all of them, lots of people use them with no ill effects but I personally had a problem with one at the beginning of last year and I have no doubt it was the bulb. I've since heard they should be mounted horizontal, I had mine mounted vertical in a dome. I don't know if this was the reason or not but I won't use one again.

https://tortoiseforum.org/threads/coil-bulbs.166917/

I don't think your opening a can of worms though. That's what this forum is good for, discussions on tortoise husbandry, and different opinions.

Actually, we do have a member or two that seem to know a GREAT DEAL about this type of lighting.
I cant recall who they were and the one member I DO recall, doesn't seem to be here anymore.
Hopefully this will attract someone that can answer your question with some sort of authority.
I do remember that these "conversations" can go sideways. Because it's a hot topic.
It's probably why we, as a group, generally just say what I parrot: The risk of using a CFL probably isn't worth it. Not when there are inexpensive 100% safe alternatives.

@Markw84
He seems to be quite knowledgeable in this area.

it is simply too intense for the area being illuminated. Think about this, two 24 watt T5 diameter tubes, one illuminates from about a 3 inch diameter circle (CFL) the same amount of light distributed over 23 inches by the straight T5 HO tube. The point is to maintain a distance for optimal UV exposure, so all that 23 inches in distribution is now 'concentrated' in 1 few inch diameter area. Pull that CFL further away for better light distribution and you loose the UV optimality. Notice this has NOTHING to do with UVC, bad/old CFLs, the annoying radio 'shield' effect of the crappy ballasts that are used or any other dogmatic (tortmatic) issue.

Will said:

it is simply too intense for the area being illuminated. Think about this, two 24 watt T5 diameter tubes, one illuminates from about a 3 inch diameter circle (CFL) the same amount of light distributed over 23 inches by the straight T5 HO tube. The point is to maintain a distance for optimal UV exposure, so all that 23 inches in distribution is now 'concentrated' in 1 few inch diameter area. Pull that CFL further away for better light distribution and you loose the UV optimality. Notice this has NOTHING to do with UVC, bad/old CFLs, the annoying radio 'shield' effect of the crappy ballasts that are used or any other dogmatic (tortmatic) issue.

Click to expand...

I love the term "tortmatic"!

J

I actually use CFLs in some of my aquatic turtle tanks where there is little room, a very small basking area and the young and very small turtles do not pose a risk of climbing too close.

My biggest problem with them is that they do put out very small amounts of UVB and therefore need to be placed fairly close to get a useful UVI reading. That then creates a situation where just a difference of on inch or two can double and triple and more, the UVI reading. UVI will increase exponentially the closer you get to an artificial source.

With a 12.0 T5 you can get a 3.0 UVI at about 20" normally, At 18" you get about 3.6 UVI. at 16" maybe a reading of 4.5. All well within acceptable ranges for tortoises where depending upon their posture - standing, laying down, etc, that distance can vary. But with a CFL, you will normally need to get it about 6" away to get a 3.0 UVI reading. just 2" closer = at 4", you could well have a reading of 10.0. It has a very narrow margin of safety that does not work with tortoises.

There is so much misinformation. For just one example the looped style CFL is designed and must be used horizontally. So many seem to immediately tell people they have to be used vertically only! Practically no useful UVB is emitted from the end of these tubes. They are designed to take advantage of the doubling and quadrupling of the tubes by looping them back on each other to create a nice UVB zone beside the tubes, not from the end.

Enough info again for me to continue to not recommend them.
I don't understand why the consistent need every so often to push these bulbs? It's been proven on here, there are still bad ones. They aren't the best bulbs. There aren't many fixtures that hold them properly and they don't cover much area nor give off good anything.
Cheap is the only thing they got going for them. With everything else against them, why do people/newbies still want to take the risk and waste their money and tortoises well being?
Yes, I'm one of those.

wellington said:

Enough info again for me to continue to not recommend them.
I don't understand why the consistent need every so often to push these bulbs? It's been proven on here, there are still bad ones. They aren't the best bulbs. There aren't many fixtures that hold them properly and they don't cover much area nor give off good anything.
Cheap is the only thing they got going for them. With everything else against them, why do people/newbies still want to take the risk and waste their money and tortoises well being?
Yes, I'm one of those.

Click to expand...

I agree.
And I appreciate the input from our more knowledgeable members in this matter.

I also appreciate the info as well. I don't like answers like "I was told they are bad" or "it's what everyone else does.". Thanks for the explanation.

DanB said:

I also appreciate the info as well. I don't like answers like "I was told they are bad" or "it's what everyone else does.". Thanks for the explanation.

Click to expand...

Rest assured almost all if not all important info/care given on this forum has been tested or proven. Not necessarily scientific experiments but enough that it's proven in results. Either by experiments individual members have done or by countless post from many members with the same problems and the same fixes have improved those problems. Members here really do care about the well being of your tortoise and that you, the owner, has the best experience possible raising that tortoise.

Not doing this again. If you want to now why they are not good you can go back and look at the volumes of already written material here on this forum.

It is not an old problem that is now fixed. It has nothing to do with how they are mounted. Some percentage of these bulbs burn reptile eyes. Some percentage of them don't. It is not known why and no one with money has any incentive to pay for an expensive study to test the bulbs and figure out with hard scientific lab data what exactly the problem is. Think about how much they study would cost. Where would it be done? Who would staff the study? Who would pay for that study?

Bottom line: The pet stores put these bulbs on the shelves and they sell. Everyone from the manufacturer down is making money. Why would they stop?

the studies been done , people use cfl's a lot more than reptiles .......the reason for eye burns is obviously UV radiation , the condition has been seen with the use a variety of types of bulbs ..... short wavelength uvb being the most harmful , but any uvb can be harmful , mercury vapor , metal halide lights appear to me to be potentially more dangerous than cfl's …….. i'd imagine it's a function of defective bulbs , proximity and possibly behavior …… cfl bulbs have been shown to leak more uvb than standard bulbs because it's harder to uniformly coat the glass with the phosphor coating , and the coating is more likely to chip away .......... I would imagine the cheaper the bulb the more likely it'll be defective or damaged ......

mark1 said:

the studies been done , people use cfl's a lot more than reptiles .......the reason for eye burns is obviously UV radiation , the condition has been seen with the use a variety of types of bulbs ..... short wavelength uvb being the most harmful , but any uvb can be harmful , mercury vapor , metal halide lights appear to me to be potentially more dangerous than cfl's …….. i'd imagine it's a function of defective bulbs , proximity and possibly behavior …… cfl bulbs have been shown to leak more uvb than standard bulbs because it's harder to uniformly coat the glass with the phosphor coating , and the coating is more likely to chip away .......... I would imagine the cheaper the bulb the more likely it'll be defective or damaged ......

Click to expand...

This makes sense (the chipping away of the coating). I was wondering when the warehouses and stores were ever going to sell those old, bad bulbs, as it's been quite a while now since they 'fixed' them.

Here's something Jaizei posted on another thread:
http://www.uvguide.co.uk/phototherapyphosphor-summary.htm