Coil bulb

[Alina+Andrey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I know of no one here that thinks that.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[THBfriend]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

You are wasting your time here.

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

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]

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.