It was the implication, Jeff.....

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana Forum ]

Posted by Mr. D on August 25, 2001 at 09:31:09:

In Reply to: Mr. D........I don't think I said anything about a ....... posted by HD on August 25, 2001 at 05:52:53:

and I thought that you would have had enough of an impression of us that you'd know that we wouldn't jump into anything with both feet without having what we felt was enough information first. Fact is, we watched these bulbs in home use applications for close to a year before we started using them ourselves. We talked with the owner of the company. We've spoken with Mr. Krughoff, at length, regarding his research. We've read university study results on UV in general in order to better educate ourselves tomake an INFORMED decision regarding these bulbs.

The reason I felt it necessary to reply to your post was because the statements that you made were based on the fact that you admittedly didn't have enough information to create an *informed* opinion. Having said that, you went on to caution against things that you, admittedly, had little or no information about.
Yes, it is possible to damage eyesight with these bulbs because they produce more UVA and B than any fluorescent bulb out there. However, it is JUST as plausible to damage your eyes by staring at a fluo tube. I coulnd end that statement here and leave it totally open ended as you did yours but let me qualify mine a bit more.
Going back to a study done by J.C. Ball (1995) (as quoted from Reptile Lighting 2000 - David Krughoff) at a distance of 1 foot a ZooMed ReptiSun 5.0 puts out 23 microwatts/cm2 UVA and 10 microwatts/cm2 UVB. Now, that being the case at 1 foot, I can only assume that this number would be significantly less at 2 and 3 feet and quite possibly non-existant at 4'+.
Now, let's take a look at the decay rate from an Active 160 watt flood. Also quoted from "Reptile Lighting 2000". At 1 foot the UVA measurement is 640 microwatts/cm2. UVB is 85. At 2 feet UVA drops to 320 and UVB 25. 3 feet, UVA= 142, UVB 11. 4 feet, UVA 80, UVB 3. The further away from the bulb, the less exposure to UV there is. It's not like there will be all sorts of random UV bouncing around a room when you light one of these bulbs. It just doesn't work that way.
As far as an Active vs. natural sunlight, I believe I pointed out previously that natural sunlight (at peak hours) produced readings of 259 microwatts/cm2 of UVB. This is not quite double the figure that the *most powerful* Active (160 spot) puts out at it's recommended distances (36" to 72"). Note that natural sunlight, which we all know is the absolute best thing for our lizards, can do the MOST damage to human eyesight if not "used" correctly.
These bulbs have been around for more than a year or two. I fully believe that part of the reason that they haven't been looked at more closely really IS because of individuals, such as Ms. Kaplan, who chose to denounce these bulbs without so much as holding one in her hand. I've been told, by more than one person that she has been offered a bulb, free of charge, several times so that she can begin to make an informed decision and she has declined every offer. Now, knowing this, how could she make the sweeping generalizations that she openly does on her website? One curious side-note here. She promotes the use of Vita-lites. According to my sources, Vita-Lite is no longer in business but when it was their bulbs produced a whopping 1 microwatt/cm2 at 12". Form opinions as you care to.
As far as comparing these bulbs to heat rocks, Jeff, I find this both somewhat amusing and at the same time alarming. Heat rocks were produced at a time when comparatively little was known about reptiles in general - iguanas specifically. Based on information gathered since then, we now know that not only are they dangerous but even if the flaws were rectified, they are completely useless for an iguana. Conversely, these bulbs have been shown to produce significant amounts of UV light which it has been proven for some time that iguanas (and other reptiles) need. Having the technology that we do today, it would be VERY simple (also expensive) to once and for all, do an indepth study on these bulbs specifically. At the same time, it is also possible to look at other studies in order to gather similiar information and apply it to these bulbs.
While I DO have a strong opinion of these bulbs, I am not one to "push" them on anyone as you say. To me, they are simply a better choice than anything else out there for both reptile health reasons AND financial ones. I just don't like seeing people making uninformed decisions based on incomplete information. As is everyone else, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I like to try to educate myself as much as possible before forming my own.

The Iguana Spot

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: and I thought that you would have had enough of an impression of us that you'd know that we wouldn't jump into anything with both feet without having what we felt was enough information first. Fact is, we watched these bulbs in home use applications for close to a year before we started using them ourselves. We talked with the owner of the company. We've spoken with Mr. Krughoff, at length, regarding his research. We've read university study results on UV in general in order to better educate ourselves tomake an INFORMED decision regarding these bulbs. : The reason I felt it necessary to reply to your post was because the statements that you made were based on the fact that you admittedly didn't have enough information to create an *informed* opinion. Having said that, you went on to caution against things that you, admittedly, had little or no information about. : Yes, it is possible to damage eyesight with these bulbs because they produce more UVA and B than any fluorescent bulb out there. However, it is JUST as plausible to damage your eyes by staring at a fluo tube. I coulnd end that statement here and leave it totally open ended as you did yours but let me qualify mine a bit more. : Going back to a study done by J.C. Ball (1995) (as quoted from Reptile Lighting 2000 - David Krughoff) at a distance of 1 foot a ZooMed ReptiSun 5.0 puts out 23 microwatts/cm2 UVA and 10 microwatts/cm2 UVB. Now, that being the case at 1 foot, I can only assume that this number would be significantly less at 2 and 3 feet and quite possibly non-existant at 4'+. : Now, let's take a look at the decay rate from an Active 160 watt flood. Also quoted from "Reptile Lighting 2000". At 1 foot the UVA measurement is 640 microwatts/cm2. UVB is 85. At 2 feet UVA drops to 320 and UVB 25. 3 feet, UVA= 142, UVB 11. 4 feet, UVA 80, UVB 3. The further away from the bulb, the less exposure to UV there is. It's not like there will be all sorts of random UV bouncing around a room when you light one of these bulbs. It just doesn't work that way. : As far as an Active vs. natural sunlight, I believe I pointed out previously that natural sunlight (at peak hours) produced readings of 259 microwatts/cm2 of UVB. This is not quite double the figure that the *most powerful* Active (160 spot) puts out at it's recommended distances (36" to 72"). Note that natural sunlight, which we all know is the absolute best thing for our lizards, can do the MOST damage to human eyesight if not "used" correctly. : These bulbs have been around for more than a year or two. I fully believe that part of the reason that they haven't been looked at more closely really IS because of individuals, such as Ms. Kaplan, who chose to denounce these bulbs without so much as holding one in her hand. I've been told, by more than one person that she has been offered a bulb, free of charge, several times so that she can begin to make an informed decision and she has declined every offer. Now, knowing this, how could she make the sweeping generalizations that she openly does on her website? One curious side-note here. She promotes the use of Vita-lites. According to my sources, Vita-Lite is no longer in business but when it was their bulbs produced a whopping 1 microwatt/cm2 at 12". Form opinions as you care to. : As far as comparing these bulbs to heat rocks, Jeff, I find this both somewhat amusing and at the same time alarming. Heat rocks were produced at a time when comparatively little was known about reptiles in general - iguanas specifically. Based on information gathered since then, we now know that not only are they dangerous but even if the flaws were rectified, they are completely useless for an iguana. Conversely, these bulbs have been shown to produce significant amounts of UV light which it has been proven for some time that iguanas (and other reptiles) need. Having the technology that we do today, it would be VERY simple (also expensive) to once and for all, do an indepth study on these bulbs specifically. At the same time, it is also possible to look at other studies in order to gather similiar information and apply it to these bulbs. : While I DO have a strong opinion of these bulbs, I am not one to "push" them on anyone as you say. To me, they are simply a better choice than anything else out there for both reptile health reasons AND financial ones. I just don't like seeing people making uninformed decisions based on incomplete information. As is everyone else, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I like to try to educate myself as much as possible before forming my own.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana Forum ]