Coil bulb

Martini5788

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
16
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

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
63,270
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
16
" 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

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Tortoise Club
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
49,661
Location (City and/or State)
Chicago, Illinois, USA
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.


View attachment 91834

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


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

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
638
Location (City and/or State)
Eastern, PA, USA
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
16
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

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Tortoise Club
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
49,661
Location (City and/or State)
Chicago, Illinois, USA
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:rolleyes: 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

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
63,270
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
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.

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

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
638
Location (City and/or State)
Eastern, PA, USA
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

Well-Known Member
Tortoise Club
5 Year Member
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,230
Location (City and/or State)
Dubai/New York
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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
 

Abdulla6169

Well-Known Member
Tortoise Club
5 Year Member
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,230
Location (City and/or State)
Dubai/New York
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
16
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

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
63,270
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
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

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
638
Location (City and/or State)
Eastern, PA, USA
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

Well-Known Member
Tortoise Club
5 Year Member
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
6,230
Location (City and/or State)
Dubai/New York
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
770
Location (City and/or State)
Sierra Vista, AZ
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.
 

New Posts

Top