Coil bulb

[Tom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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]

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....