# UV exposure in the FR. Dangerous for us??



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

I dont think Ive seen this discussed.

There is though an old member who swears he was temporarily blinded by UV light coming off the lamps he had in his bedroom FR.

Ultimately needed medical care and swore he would never use a UV bulb again....

Thoughts??


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

First I hope this fellow frogger made a full recovery.

Unfortunate accidents happen all the time. A few years ago NFL quarterback Brian Griese tripped over his dog and twisted his ankle. Could happen to anybody. What I don't understand is how the lights got in his eyes. Just looking around the frog room and I'm not blinded by any lights. Though not UV lights I'm just not seeing how lights pointed down into the viv could blind someone. Even my rack which just uses exposed shop light fixtures doesn't cause me to squint or anything. I'm not being sarcastic just noting my own personal observation.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Do You Know the Dangers of Ultraviolet Light to Your Eyes?

I assume a similar condition to Welders 'Arc Eye' condition....

High output UV bulbs loose 'exposure' with distance but they can travel quite a ways....

How he was exposed I dont know, but the temporary UV flash sunburn of the eye is likely MUCH less common then the long term low grade exposure that cause cataracts in MILLIIONs annually...


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Well if millions contract cataracts from long term low grade exposure, then what's to become of froggers or reptile keepers that are likely exposed to a higher grade, higher exposure of UV? 

I worked for 15 years as a land surveyor. Outside, all day, every day. Three things I made sure I had every day, sunscreen spf 25+, polarized UVA/UVB blocking sunglasses, and water.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

^ my point exactly. I am curious if we have members in the industry that have more specifics for us...

They dont wear those silly goggles in tanning booths for nothing folks 

There was a time in the 80's where it was 'high tech' to pump unmeasured Ozone through generators into your aquariums....my room smelled of fresh lightening storm  , yikes...

They even made/make Ozone generators for your home...to 'clean' the indoor air....

Next there will be Radon generators too....

Anyway, I am just curious about peoples thoughts on UV exposure from all the high output bulbs we are converting to these days...


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

sports_doc said:


> I dont think Ive seen this discussed.
> 
> There is though an old member who swears he was temporarily blinded by UV light coming off the lamps he had in his bedroom FR.
> 
> ...


Thoughts?
Oh. I have them.

I AM am an old timer when it comes to UV.
I was even using GE mercury vapor "time- a- tan " bulbs over leopard tortoises in the late 70's. LOL!

If he was using a mercury vapor bulb or some UVC Sterilizing bulb (I suspect that was what he was doing.)
If true- Using srerilizing UVC instead of a correct UV source would have been crazy BTW.. since all UV radiation IS NOT the same / same wavelength. 

Then this story couldy sadly be true.

BUT why would he be doing that anyway? Mybe he did not know.

Sterilizing UV C bulbs are NOT what is used for frogs.... _or ANY life form one wishes to keep alive for that matter._
UV C rays do not hit the Earth naturally since we are lucky enough to have a little thing called the Ozone layer to save us from them. 

But there are UV C bulbs (common to most of us as used in saltwater UV sterilizes) that DO generate these 'C" rays to kill CELLS... microorganisms and even skin cells.

Here we are in the year 2012, thankfully.

The UV bulbs that are designed for our applications over terrariums now days :
(ie: Arcadia and Zoo Med)

1.
Are not producing damaging UV C rays OR super low "non- terrestrial" UV B rays.

2.
Plus...
You are seeing most of the light THROUGH tank glass... so no UV B rays are hitting your eye-balls. It has all been filtered out by the glass tank walls! 

3.
And anything that would blind you is NOT being sold for frogs by any one that knows their stuff. 

If it would blind you with just incidental exposure...
then probably the skin would have sun-burned off the frogs before that happened to tip you off that something was wrong.  

Attached are some examples of the testing I do.
Shown are Arcadia T5 UV levels. Taken to test and compare with natural readings outside... and to match up with what Europeans have gotten for readings with the bulbs.

Note: the 6.5 (Red) meter is used to see the UV index and the Green 6.2 Solarmeter is used to test microwatts of UV B per sq. centimeter. 

The green 6.2 reading is usually the standard one of reference when folks flip out UV numbers. 

Also NOTE:
T5's generate approx. 40 - 50% more light than t-8's.
So that carries through to the UV light they give off as well.

Keep in mind, since most tops are covered by 60% or more of glass.... you do have that whole "net loss" of UV B to factor in to compute what is actually getting into the cage enviroment. That must be considered.

Oh, Plus, best news yet... I am not blind.



Cheers!
Todd
lightyourreptiles.com

PS. Hey...Maybe some European hobbyists can chime in here since they have been UV-ing certain species of frogs longer than most US keepers???


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

^ I've been waiting for you Todd 


I still think you can make big $$ selling Proprietary LYR UV protected sunglasses, polarized to brighten all those frog colors, and make us nerdy froggers look COOL ....


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

sports_doc said:


> ^ I've been waiting for you Todd
> 
> 
> I still think you can make big $$ selling Proprietary LYR UV protected sunglasses, polarized to brighten all those frog colors, and make us nerdy froggers look COOL ....


your pair is in the mail.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Venutus1 said:


> your pair is in the mail.


I'm just gonna buy some cheep knockoffs, made in china of course, at the local truck stop, they'll work the same right?


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

sports_doc said:


> There was a time in the 80's where it was 'high tech' to pump unmeasured Ozone through generators into your aquariums....my room smelled of fresh lightening storm  , yikes...
> 
> They even made/make Ozone generators for your home...to 'clean' the indoor air....
> 
> ...


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Todd. With your expertise in lighting and what not, I'd love to see you do some kind of real testing of PAR on some of the commonly available bulbs hobbiests are using. Some kind of nice spreadsheet with brands, wattages, etc... would be awesome. So much of the information we are using is subjective. I'd like to see some of the hard data that we have for reef bulbs these days for the vivarium bulbs we use.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I would like to comment on this thread but I can't quite make out the letters on my keyboard any longer....hope I didn't misspell, this was all done by feel.

ps I wonder how many of us use UV, I don't I use T5 HO on most of my tanks.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Shawn,

As I understand it, a single short term exposure shouldn't cause that kind of response unless there was an underlying medical issue and/or the person was on a photosensitizing medication. It is more likely to cause an issue if the bulbs are unshielded and are observed over a longer period of time.. It should also be noted that light outside of the UV and IR region can potentially cause lesions on the eyes. See for example http://www.chronotherapeutics.org/docs/term/Reme 1996 Technol Health Care.PDF 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm sure someone has already pointed it out, but the UV produced by most bulbs available only reaches a maximum of 16-18 inches.


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

Blue_Pumilio said:


> I'm sure someone has already pointed it out, but the UV produced by most bulbs available only reaches a maximum of 16-18 inches.


That is only true in part...but it is all relative. 



Most all agree Dart Frogs do not need high levels at all to synthesize vit D (similar to a lot of geckos and things.) 



So luckily, we can can get sufficient amounts of UV for them with what is available.... when it is correctly applied.



AND now with the new Arcadia T5s, you can get suitable levels as far as 36++ inches away.



Ok.. this is the time now I plug Solarmeters.  



They are one handy (yet kind of expensive) tool to use to know EXACTLY what is going on with the UV light.



Cheers,

Todd


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

i feel that uv exposure is a possible danger to us. as i always tell patients who are concerned about getting xrays there is no safe lvl of radiation. it is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward. the reward of a good radiograph is that you can more accurately diagnose which leads to health rewards that are almost always greater than the risk of the radiograph that obtained them. the rays we want in our lamps are mainly in the uvb range. that is the range implicated as a causitive agent in melanomas. yes the dosage is highly attenuated by range, but it only takes one photon to hit the wrong spot to cause a tumor. i do plan on adding uv lamps to my viv. but will always have a piece of glass btwn me and the lamp. overall it is a risk but probably much lower in value than the risk of driving to a swap or store. i cant remember the exact number but something like one in ten drivers on the road in wisconsin are legally over the alcohol limit at any time.


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

as a quick aside i have already bought a uv exposure meter. handy for the beach, not too pricey, and essential when you are a swede. it will also be used to test the uv levels crudely in the viv and see if im getting dosed at my desk.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skanderson said:


> as a quick aside i have already bought a uv exposure meter. handy for the beach, not too pricey, and essential when you are a swede. it will also be used to test the uv levels crudely in the viv and see if im getting dosed at my desk.


Becareful with interpreting those results. There is some good data out there that some meters are inaccurate to say the least.... See for example some of the discussion in this paper http://mail.solarmeter.com/pdfs/paper3.pdf 

Ed


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

I don't agree that no level of radiation is safe. UV exposure is essential for Vitamin D production in humans, as well as herps. Due to the concerns over skin cancer, most people in the U.S. are Vitamin D deficient. This has been found to cause improper immune response to viral respiratory infections. So, unless you work outdoors, a few minutes in the frog room every day is probably fine.


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

*Mrs. Frances Baines, the leading herp UV expert **must watch** please.*

Mrs. Baines is one of the WORLDS leading experts on UV for captive herps. period.

Mrs. Baines is showing her UV data with excellent charts and graphs... setting up for a recent presentation in UK! 

Please check it out, it is MOST informative.

*Now...
Let us Bask for 4 min. and 14 sec. in her knowledge... shall we? *







Cheers!
Todd Goode
lightyourreptiles.com


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

i am right in stating that no lvl of ionizing radiation is safe. you are right in stating that uv is essential for heath. im not aware that most of the us population is vit deficient due to low uv exposure. i was told at a meeting that after australias campaign to lower uv exposure to prevent skin cancer that they did nationally have a vit d deficiency problem. i dont worry about a little exposure but it is best to be careful around uv. especially around bulbs that are now putting out higher lvls of uv. when my uv meter first arrived, and i dont doubt that the cheap little meter i bought is quite unaccurate, i took a reading on a cloudy december day in wisconsin at noon. the outdoor lvl of uv here was lower than the uv lvl in my basement under my 250 watt MH bulbs that are supposedly not emitting uv due to there outer glass layer. i suspected this as i have gotten minor sunburn after working under mh bulbs for long periods of time. my skin is an excellent detector of uv.


----------



## tachikoma (Apr 16, 2009)

Ed said:


> Hi Shawn,
> 
> As I understand it, a single short term exposure shouldn't cause that kind of response unless there was an underlying medical issue and/or the person was on a photosensitizing medication. It is more likely to cause an issue if the bulbs are unshielded and are observed over a longer period of time.. It should also be noted that light outside of the UV and IR region can potentially cause lesions on the eyes. See for example http://www.chronotherapeutics.org/docs/term/Reme 1996 Technol Health Care.PDF
> 
> Ed



To add, although I can't remember the source I do know it was a peer reviewed study that mentioned lighter colored eyes seem to get damaged more easily from uv radiation than darker eyes. I wish I could cite the study better but I can't remember where I read it.


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

not to start an argument here, especially with myself, but i just read an article that says that radiation does indeed have a lower threshhold for harm. the government statement about no safe lvl of radiation, which has been drilled into anyone in the medical community, is based on studies in the 1950s. more recent work has shown that areas of naturally higher background radiation may actually have lower lvls of cancers than areas with lower background radiation. in any event i still contend that a lvl of care is needed when dealing with uvb lighting.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skanderson said:


> not to start an argument here, especially with myself, but i just read an article that says that radiation does indeed have a lower threshhold for harm. the government statement about no safe lvl of radiation, which has been drilled into anyone in the medical community, is based on studies in the 1950s. more recent work has shown that areas of naturally higher background radiation may actually have lower lvls of cancers than areas with lower background radiation. in any event i still contend that a lvl of care is needed when dealing with uvb lighting.


Keep in mind that when you say "radiation does have a lower threshold of safety" that this takes into account all forms of radiation, gamma, UV, regular light, alpha and beta decay and so forth. What we are really considering here is the exposure to UVB and UVA radiation. Exposure to UVB has to be weighed against the benefits of converting provitamin D3 to D3. 
As for deficiency in the US see High Prevalence of Vitamin D Insufficiency in Black and White Pregnant Women Residing in the Northern United States and Their Neonates 
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/VitDEpidemiology/HealthyAdolescentsD.pdf
http://www.pinnaclife.com/assets/files/pdf/References/VitaminD/Zadshir.pdf

Ed


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

sports_doc said:


> ^
> 
> 
> I still think you can make big $$ selling Proprietary LYR UV protected sunglasses, polarized to brighten all those frog colors, and make us nerdy froggers look COOL ....




Shawn,

Isn't that what mushrooms are for?

Lou


----------

