 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Mr. D on December 08, 2002 at 18:36:39:
In Reply to: Re: Ms. Kaplan... posted by melissk on December 07, 2002 at 13:25:32:
::There is a study going on in Finland. Preliminary results include the following about the Active UV product they tested: "As part of the test, a statement was formulated as to the safety of Active UVHeat in domestic use. It turned out that the amount of UV is so high, that human safety limits are exceeded at 30 cm distance from the 100W flood lamp surface in 40 minutes and at distance of 1,5 metres in 6 1/2 hours. So without effective shading of stray light, it cannot be safely used indoors for a normal 12 hrs / day."::
Hmm...Since you still have not disclosed the conductors of this "test" I guess all I can do is release my own rudimentary findings. Evidently I'm going to have to get my own equipment checked because I just took a fresh MV 100w flood out of the box last night and performed a test similar to the one that you described here. After 30 minutes warm up at 14" directly under the bulb I recorded 48 microwatts/cm2. At 6' (approx. one meter and one half I believe) I recorded - nothing, i.e. zero microwatts/cm2. At a distance of two feet from the center of the bulb and a radius of one foot I recorded 19 microwatts/cm2. At a distance of two feet away from the center of the bulb and a radius of 2 feet I also logged a "zero" reading a full 360* around the bulb. This was all conducted in an otherwise dark room at approximately 6 p.m. so there was absoultely no chance of "contamination" from natural sunlight - despite the test being performed indoors.
I guess my radiometer must be malfunctioning.
For the last three years I have used upwards of 25 mercury vapor bulbs 100w, 160w, flood and spot every day on the animals in my care. To date, no one human or animal, has presented with any form of burn - thermal, radiational, or otherwise. None of the animals have developed cataracts or blindness. Perhaps that is because I am using the bulbs correctly?
Certainly, I would not suggest that someone with a known medical condition potentially affected by UVB radiation expose themselves to any source that could worsen their condition. Of course, I would also expect them to know enough not to do this themselves. For instance, I know without a shadow of a doubt that Brazil nuts WILL absolutely kill me - which is why I do not knowingly eat anything containing them. However, several years ago, even after asking a waiter AND a pastry chef multiple times the content of a dessert and receiving a satisfactory answer I STILL nearly died because of Brasil nuts contained in the dessert. Which brings up another interesting point.
Due to the severe anaphylactic shock that I sustained my doctors have confirmed that my immune system has also been compromised. I would not dream of comparing the extent of my damage to the same manner and degree that yours may have been but it is still significant none the less. And yet, I still turn these bulbs on every day without a problem.
I also do not mind when people disagree with me. But when an individual, such as yourself, has such an obviously strong opinion on this topic I would expect that they would find some manner to personally test these bulbs - whether by way of an assistant or other - before they begin publishing their "personal" opinion of them, an opinion that has been formed by assimilating, yet once again, other individuals research when they have the basic ability to find this information first hand.
I DO mind when someone, such as yourself, who has the attention of the entire herpetological/cultural community insists on allowing their own personal predisposed "conditions" to otherwise affect their opinion of a topic when there are so many other "personal anecdotal accounts" contrary to theirs. At some point, a certain amount of weight has to be given to these accounts.
It is my feeling that it is not simply the fact that the bulbs produce more UV than their fluorescent counterparts. What IS significant about the increased output is the fact that the bulbs may be placed at greater distances from the animals thereby decreasing the possibility of direct contact and increasing the safety of the animal in question. As we all know, fluorescent tubes MUST be kept within 12" of an animal in order for the animal to benefit. 12" is also well within the reach of many species thereby increasing the potential for injury or death should the animal accidently dislodge the bulb and shatter it. If a UV source can be located further away and still offer the same benefit of exposure that is definitely a better option as far as I am concerned.
