Coil/compact UVB bulbs in 2021
- Thread starter joperez
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coil type tortoise uvb uvb uvb10.0
I would NOT feed avocado, I've heard it's toxic to tortoise/turtles.
Bridgebob
Active Member
I think you are correct.
I need her to start eating greens though.
I fed her jelly one time and she got very sick. Processed sugar is a definite NO!
@Tom and others; I keep trying to say this over and over. In my posts for several years now. I have not ever "recommended using" compact bulbs on this forum. Even though I am convinced all the major brand name manufactured bulbs do not have any issues for over 9 years now.
What I am constantly trying to say is that I believe we are so focused on the old out-dated belief that "they cause eye damage", that this overshadows and stops the investigation for any other issues that may be happening. Just today a member posted "just don't get those screw in type bulbs as they cause eye problems". That was it as far as UV advice. Isn't if far more beneficial to advise to be careful to mount any UVB bulb correctly as they all can cause eye damage if used incorrectly? That would cover 100x more of the cases we ever would see. I most of the posts I researched on eye damage, the real issue often was dry, or sharp substrate. But the advice stopped with "don't use those screw in bulbs". How many people that are/were using a compact bulb and came here for advice was simply given the "get rid of that bulb it causes eye damage" and never any more investigation was given to the far more common husbandry issues. I saw that in over 50% of the eye damage posts I researched. Most eye damage posts do not even look like photokerito cunjunctivitis, yet immediately that is the assumed problem - and if a compact bulb is in use that is the end of the search for the real problem. That is the issue I am concerned about.
@maggie3fan There was indeed a real problem with compact fluorescents just over a decade ago. Plenty of dangerous bulbs were found and tested. Improper phosphorus mixtures used by some at that time were cheaper and emitted dangerous wavelengths. That was corrected and no one has found a bulb emitting those types of wavelengths since those changes were made. This does not include come China made "cheaper" bulbs that still will have very inconsistent phosphor blends used.
If defective bulbs were found back then when the issue was identified, why hasn't more in the past 9 years been found by the same folks looking even more diligently now? They could indentify them back then, but now, with better testing, more people testing, more bulbs being tested, they haven't found any! All we have is people stuck in old outdated information, assuming the problem from extremely unreliable and very incomplete information. This forum is the perfect example of that. Look back at eye issue posts and see what ever was actually found to be the true case. Most of them later in the thread find other issues as the real cause. But people remember an eye issue post with reference to a compact bulb used. Most of those posts turn out to not even having a compact bulb in use at all. Yet another example of a post with eye issues and compact bulb mentioned. A good example is a post where the "are you using a coil type bulb?" was immediately offered. A picture followed with a tank and a MVB hung 8" over substrate. The response - are you sure that is not a coil bulb? We on the forum have so successfully taught so many that coil bulbs are evil that most don't know to look any further.
Many very smart people what are indeed the most expert tortoise keepers in the world are here on the forum. Because of this preconditioned response about coil bulbs, they by repetitive volume of "is that a coil bulb" when ever an eye issue comes up, are left with a mounting impression that these bulbs are still an issue. Certainly with vets, we also know how many old beliefs sway the diagnosis of an issue. Yet with coil bulb the same type diagnosis is suddenly valid with that vet? They are the same as we are. If you say something as consistently and often it will become your reality.
The odds of a MVB causing eye problems is 110 x greater than a coil bulb.
The odds of a HO T5 12% causing eye problems is much much greater.
The odds of dry conditions causing eye problems are WAYYYY greater.
The odds of an infection causing eye problems are infinitely greater.
Yet we are so focused on coil bulb!
What I am constantly trying to say is that I believe we are so focused on the old out-dated belief that "they cause eye damage", that this overshadows and stops the investigation for any other issues that may be happening. Just today a member posted "just don't get those screw in type bulbs as they cause eye problems". That was it as far as UV advice. Isn't if far more beneficial to advise to be careful to mount any UVB bulb correctly as they all can cause eye damage if used incorrectly? That would cover 100x more of the cases we ever would see. I most of the posts I researched on eye damage, the real issue often was dry, or sharp substrate. But the advice stopped with "don't use those screw in bulbs". How many people that are/were using a compact bulb and came here for advice was simply given the "get rid of that bulb it causes eye damage" and never any more investigation was given to the far more common husbandry issues. I saw that in over 50% of the eye damage posts I researched. Most eye damage posts do not even look like photokerito cunjunctivitis, yet immediately that is the assumed problem - and if a compact bulb is in use that is the end of the search for the real problem. That is the issue I am concerned about.
@maggie3fan There was indeed a real problem with compact fluorescents just over a decade ago. Plenty of dangerous bulbs were found and tested. Improper phosphorus mixtures used by some at that time were cheaper and emitted dangerous wavelengths. That was corrected and no one has found a bulb emitting those types of wavelengths since those changes were made. This does not include come China made "cheaper" bulbs that still will have very inconsistent phosphor blends used.
If defective bulbs were found back then when the issue was identified, why hasn't more in the past 9 years been found by the same folks looking even more diligently now? They could indentify them back then, but now, with better testing, more people testing, more bulbs being tested, they haven't found any! All we have is people stuck in old outdated information, assuming the problem from extremely unreliable and very incomplete information. This forum is the perfect example of that. Look back at eye issue posts and see what ever was actually found to be the true case. Most of them later in the thread find other issues as the real cause. But people remember an eye issue post with reference to a compact bulb used. Most of those posts turn out to not even having a compact bulb in use at all. Yet another example of a post with eye issues and compact bulb mentioned. A good example is a post where the "are you using a coil type bulb?" was immediately offered. A picture followed with a tank and a MVB hung 8" over substrate. The response - are you sure that is not a coil bulb? We on the forum have so successfully taught so many that coil bulbs are evil that most don't know to look any further.
Many very smart people what are indeed the most expert tortoise keepers in the world are here on the forum. Because of this preconditioned response about coil bulbs, they by repetitive volume of "is that a coil bulb" when ever an eye issue comes up, are left with a mounting impression that these bulbs are still an issue. Certainly with vets, we also know how many old beliefs sway the diagnosis of an issue. Yet with coil bulb the same type diagnosis is suddenly valid with that vet? They are the same as we are. If you say something as consistently and often it will become your reality.
The odds of a MVB causing eye problems is 110 x greater than a coil bulb.
The odds of a HO T5 12% causing eye problems is much much greater.
The odds of dry conditions causing eye problems are WAYYYY greater.
The odds of an infection causing eye problems are infinitely greater.
Yet we are so focused on coil bulb!
TeamZissou
Well-Known Member
Are you using a Solarmeter 8.0 or some other UVC meter to measure the output in the 200-280 nm range? It looks like a typical Solarmeter 6.5 has the highest response around 290-300 nm, so would miss the damaging wavelengths.
Or, is/was the big problem with old/Chinese CFL bulbs just way too much power output in the target 300 nm range as alluded to in post #20?
I have used my solarmeter 6.5 to measure my UVC bulbs I use on my pond. Not exact, but does show output degradation. Even though these are UVC bulb, the solarmeter reads around 45.0 just taking a reading out the little hole on the end of the compartment they go in. I don't mess with those bulbs turned on and exposed.
All the defective bulbs currently found from the "off brands" do read abnormally high with a 6.5 meter.
I've tried not to get too technical in my responses, but the way a fluorescent of any type (and MVB) work is controlled by the makeup of the chemicals used in the phosphor coating. That coating is actually fused into the inner surface of the bulbs by heating to almost the melting point of the glass - so the coating is permanent. It is the phosphorescence of these chemicals (the glow) that is actually producing the light emitted. The source of the energy - the vaporized mercury - only emits 254nm wavelength when highly excited. It is the phosphors that then capture these photons and re-emit energy in very specific wavelenghts that create the light we see. Different chemicals - emit different frequencies. I think most people envison the phosphor coating filtering the light. It does not. The chemicals capture the 254 nm photons and then re-release photons at the wavelenths particular to that chemical. So it is the blend of the phosphor that controls the "color" of the light. That is also whey the spectographs you see of fluorescent light show as a series of sharp peaks of color. The better the blend, the wider and more "true" the color rendered. There will be more peaks distributed thoughout the color range. Cheap blends with fewer types of chemicals are not good at this. Too much is emitted in the fewer "spike" points. You get too distorted a color, and can get too much UV. Today, the same exact phosphor blend used in the regular UVB tubes we all recommend is actually the exact same phosphor blend used in the compacts now by the major manufacturers.
Bridgebob
Active Member
You guys need to look into LED more.
I'm even thinking of dispersed lasers thru freznel lenses! Lasers have very exact wavelengths and most are accurate to fractions of nanometers. And they last forever!
Heat is easy. Halogen all the way.
I'm even thinking of dispersed lasers thru freznel lenses! Lasers have very exact wavelengths and most are accurate to fractions of nanometers. And they last forever!
Heat is easy. Halogen all the way.
Well this is a whole different conversation and tone than your previous posts in this thread. You've gone from "I've tested CFLs and find no problem..." to "CFL bulbs are not the only cause of eye issues and we should all investigate further when we encounter an eye problem because there are several other possible causes that are more likely."
I agreed with the latter the first time your said it years ago, and I still agree with it today. I changed my line of questioning members with eye issues after the first time you and I had this discussion. I do look for other obvious causes and try to eliminate each of them. I even list the most common possible causes of eye issues when no single problem seems obvious, so that the people can consider each of them on their own. These include, in no particular order:
1. Dry dusty substrate and overly dry conditions.
2. Sand in substrate.
3. Incorrect use of UV bulbs.
4. Incorrect temperatures, eventually leading to sickness.
5. Long term malnutrition.
6. Mechanical injury, especially when its only one eye.
7. CFL bulbs.
I can wholeheartedly agree with and get behind post number 44. Not so much with the previous posts. I'd like to remind you that while you've looked at and used a few CFLs, hundreds of thousands of them are sold annually. Maybe millions world wide. I think we all agree that not all of them cause this problem, and I think even you will agree that some percentage of them still do. You already said the Chinese made ones can be bad, but which brands are which? I texted my vet friend when you first chimed in on this thread, and he says he has still been seeing cases of this over the last couple of years, and he does go down the list of eliminating all the other possible causes. Perhaps these are the Chinese made bulbs?I agree that other things can cause eye issues and we should consider all possibilities. Will you agree that some of these coil bulbs do still cause a problem?
What brands are made in China and still causing problems that you have seen? Which brands have you been testing and using that have to been a problem for you, and where are those made?
i think anyone that actually needs to use a uvb light should have a uvb meter and use it ....... your using something that is potentially unhealthy on your tortoise , without some way to know you may provide too little or too much
UV radiation and the Eye
Karen Walsh
"This is illustrated by the fact that UVB at 300nm is roughly 600 times more biologically effective at damaging ocular tissue than UVA at 325nm"
radiation emitting lights are regulated by the fda , my house is full of cfl's , i can see 6 from where i'm sitting ...... i believe new and better coating methods have been developed ..... i've used cfl's ,mvb's and fluorescent tubes on my turtles/tortoises , i've never had an issue , but i never put them very close to the animals , without a meter to tell , they probably were not even effective ...... before uvb lights were commercially availabe i use to use mercury vapor street lights , knowing what i do now , none of what i did to provide uvb probably worked , except keeping them outdoors as much as possible ........ i do think it would be easier to put an mvb or cfl too close , would be harder to put fluorescent light fixture too close .... in other words , i think it would be easier to misuse an mvb or cfl .... jmo
Bridgebob
Active Member
She is strechy all the way! Heat. UV and moist substrate.
Her head is pearing around streching to the max. Although she is eating some herbs (Oragono, Basil, Cardamom etc) in her substrate.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 29,129
- Location (City and/or State)
- South Eastern Florida (U.S.A.)/Rock Hill S.C.
A UV meter is definitely something that indoor tortoise keepers should invest in.
It's the only way of knowing the UV level with ANY UV type.
Too bad there are no really inexpensive options. It's the cost that is the issue. Even though those meters pay for themselves in being able to change the lights position to lengthen the tubes service life.
It's still a hard sell.
We have had many posts/threads with the Coil bulb being the problem, turned off and problem solved.
Unfortunately many that do come on and post with eye problems are newbies and don't usually come back with what the actual problem ended up being.
There was a problem at one point where they were recalled/removed. The main problem with using them is the way they are hung. If hung vertical they can be a problem, horizontal is the way they are meant too hang but there aren't many fixtures available for them like there is the tube florescent or regular style screw in.
Have you used them with tortoises or just aquatics? The aquatics may have the advantage of constant water washing their eyes and possibly dispersing the rays.
For other issues that may cause eye problems, I see that most are addressed after its determined a CFL is not used. The CFL is the fastest quick fix, why not start there! If that doesn't correct the problem then, if they let us know, the rest of the possibilities can be addressed if they weren't from the start.
I'm on Tom and Yvonnes wagon. I also will always ask that as my first question when an eye problem/red/swollen arises.
Last edited:
Your post is a great example of some of my main concerns about this. There is so much misinformation based on hearsay and it is totally incorrect.
If the problem with the UVB light was it was placed too close - when turned off or removed - the problem would be solved. It does not mean it was defective. Because of their compact size and ability to hang in a hood, CFLs are easy for novice tortoise keepers to place way too close - especially in a high reflective hood. The same with MVB lights. Way too easy to put too close and is a very common things we see - once everyone goes through the faulty CFL questioning first and may finally get to placement issues. By then more damage has been done.
The problem with defective compacts that surfaced was not orientation. The problem was inconsistent phosphor and glass blends used in manufacturing. As far as orientation - If you have a looped compact it will emit very low levels of UV out of the bottom of the tube. There is no danger of high amounts from the end. The looped type are designed to be place horizontally as the most tube area is exposed when place horizontally. When hung vertically, there is little tube surface area facing down and the reading just a few inches away will be less than 1.0 UVI. Many hobbyists had aquarium hood type fixtures that used a screw in bulb in a horizontal position. This bulb was created to fit that type application. The coil bulbs are designed to maximize the surface area of the tube in a relatively small area. A lot of tube surface area in a small area - perfect for installation in a dome. It is designed for use in a dome. I would not use one that is not in a dome as it would be in your own eyes whenever you were working in the enclosure.
You cannot wash away irritation or damage from radiation! If eyes have been damaged they need to heal and water won't help. Water also does not filter UV. UV penetrates very well though water.
Assuming all CFLs or the CFL in use is faulty is not at all the fastest fix. Assuming some type of UVB bulb is installed too close is the fastest fix if you see both eyes swollen and red. By asking "what type of UVB bulb do you have and how close is it to the tortoise" You will uncover a far greater number of problems. Looking only for a faulty CFL you still leave a MVB or tube fluorescent mounted too close there, burning the tortoise's eyes.
Yes I do also sometimes use CFLs over my tortoises. I also am using and testing the new LEDs I will only use Arcadia or ZooMed CFLs. I certainly don't trust off brands. Just as I don't trust off brand CHEs or LEDs. Arcadia actually makes a very effective 23 watt 12% CFL that produces an excellent basking zone - very similar to the basking zone their new LED UVB light creates at the same distances. At 1/8 the cost. The CFL produces better ambient lighting (longer wavelengths) in addition to the UV that the LED does not.
I don't have a uv meter to verify but Years ago after the CFL supposedly was fixed, I researched some piace that using the cfl in a the vertical position concentrated the Ray's to the end of the bulb and that's what caused the newer problems.
Have you tested them that way? I don't remember the source.
Yes, the bulb could be too close and turned off corrects the problem suggesting it's either a bad bulb or too close. However, I don't really recall seeing many posts, if any, where lights were to close as most follow the suggestions of distance that is on the packages. Unless all the suggested distances are incorrect.
No, I know the water won't wash away the problem of the bulb, but it would be less noticeable with a turtle that has some soothing cool water on his eyes compared to a turtle that stays out of the water. That's a guess from my own experience. I know what it feels like to get eyes burning, from acid, and using the eye wash station to relieve the pain of the burn and of course for me, wash the acid out. I also know that uv penetrates water, wouldn't be any corals if it didn't. But reflection and I believe I said dispersing of it by the water.
Btw, I would love the cfl to be safe, good uvb and a good bulb. They are much cheaper, the last time I looked, quite a few years ago, then any other source.
I guess if that is proven then it should be made 100%clear the brand's that are actually safe and how they are to be used.
Also agree that other ways of questioning a swollen eye thread would work too. Being we are all different and have different ways of doing things, it's never going to be only one way.
Noelluene
Active Member
Do you have a source or post for this I can read?
TeamZissou
Well-Known Member
Apparently this is may not be true anymore. The current thread, discussion, and posts by Mark reflect several years of observation and measurements of CFL bulbs has the latest info. The problem with CFLs seems to have been eliminated by reliable manufactures like ZooMed and Arcadia. Some inexpensive or off brand bulbs still may cause the photokeratitis problems. He talked specifically about the looped vs coil bulbs with regard to orientation/mounting a few posts after the one you referenced.
Ultimately if anyone is going to use a CFL (or any UVB bulb), they need to use a Solarmeter 6.5 to properly dial in the height and target UV index.
Citation please. Theres a difference in saying that the different bulb shapes work better in different orientations or fixture types and stating that the bulbs were specifically designed as such.
