Reptile & Amphibian Forums

SB160 WATT CLEAR SOLAR BRITE PET LAMP MERCURY VAPOR REPTILE LIGHT BULB

Does anyone have any experience using the following, or any date regarding them:

http://www.bulborama.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=470

I'm looking to setup some new uro's and want to go the mercury vapor route, but as always am trying to be economical at the same time. Any experience with this brand would be appreciated, or just opinions at first glance. Thanks,

-Christain-
-----
"A righteous man respects the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." - Proverbs 12.10

I would not trust any bulb that has not been tested on a spectragraph and PROVEN safe through years of widespread use. Solarmeters are not reliable if you do not have a trusted bulb-they do not discriminate between good uvb and non-solar uvb. Many of these new mercury vapors are cheaply manufactured, vary immensely in wattage and output from bulb to bulb even when rated as the same wattage, and blow out on a regular basis. Furthermore-any bulb manufactured in China I would consider untrustworthy for all of the above reasons.I have had one come apart when unscrewing it-real safe. The external ballast megarays may seem more expensive at first, but consider they will be good for an entire year. Now a bulb that is advertised at as low as $31 plus shipping may seem attractive, but when it blows out more often than not at 2-3 mths, you pay $6 a month to replace plus shipping, at the end of 6 months that bulb costs 50-60 bucks and then you need a new one again-at full price because it is warranteed for only 6 mths. Megaray has been proven to maintain D3 serum levels,EB's run on 60 watts, and I never heard a bad thing except a minor buzzing noise complaint-which I am sure is something mega-ray would replace for you if it caused a problem-and that is an isolated event at most. Cheap=CHEAP and not worth it. As for bulborama-4x the energy is not a very wise marketing strategy(therefore what do they even know?) and is not desirable to the consumer or end-consumer(the uro)in my opinion. The reptile needs to withdraw from the uv and still have access to the environment for thermoregulation.Regardless of price, you cannot duplicate the sun and should not try- the sun does not produce intense UVB on earth all day long or even everyday, and the atmosphere filters out the harmful rays. All things the manufacturers and distributors of these cheapo bulbs don't care to take into consideration. It will bite you in the butt eventually. I gar-aun-teee, man. Seriously, unless you are into repeating others mistakes, bulbs like these have been known to be problematic so don't do it. It could take months for your animals to recover if they are that lucky. Megaray is the best or t-rex will do just fine.If you want to save money, in the long run an external ballast megaray is the way. WildInside also has the same product.
Later.

Plus-that bulb even LOOKS dangerous-the mechanism and therefore the arch is in clear view with nothing to diffuse the light. You will also have to unscrew it from the glass-not good at high temp, it can come apart at the seal, and it is likely some bulbs will.Bad for you and the uro. Enough ranting, but i speak the truth.

Cmarin,

Just curious, were you going by the username BigKooz just a week or so ago?

I am still here. I got a million aka's but just B'K on the forum. Told you they found no low wavelength uvb or uvc,too. Wouldn't let innocent dhubs suffer. But CMarin IS correct. very busy, no time to fight.

”Solarmeters are not reliable if you do not have a trusted bulb-they do not discriminate between good uvb and non-solar uvb.”

Non-solar uvb?

For the record, I own several Solarmeters and find them to be accurate when it comes to measuring microwatts/square cm of uvb output from bulbs. I make this statement based on bulbs that have come directly from the manufacturer with a UVB rating and getting a comparable rating on my meters. I also base this on having more than one meter registering similar readings on the same bulb.

Are you sure you are not getting confused with the fact that the standard solarmeter used in the hobby (6.2) measures the complete UVB range and does not differentiate between the various wavelengths?

If this is what you are referring to, keep in mind that your friends at uvguide.co.uk are promoting this very Solarmeter (6.2) as “consistent and reliable”. They also go on to explain how the meters sensitivity is set at the peak range (290-300) for D3 synthesis making it an ideal (their word not mine) tool for checking UVB for reptile lamps.

Or maybe you are suggesting that some of the bulbs on the market are emitting UVC and the Solarmeter will not register this deadly radiation???

C Elmer,

I am not familiar with the bulb you are asking about so I cannot advise you on this. Do be careful of what you read on these forums, as not all of the advice will be reliable and accurate.

It is a common misconception that a solarmeter 6.2 registers ONLY the peak sensitivity, when in fact, it is a broadband meter that measures the entire uvb range. It is a new practice to use both a solarmeter 6.2 and a uv index meter. For instance, a reading of 100 microwatts per cm sq. may register as low as 2 on the uv index for one bulb that does not emit LOW WAVELENGTH(non-solar)UVB. The same 100 microwatts per cm sq reading from a bulb that DOES emit the DANGEROUS low wavelengths (such as the wavelengths that the earth's atmosphere filters out) will have a uv index as high as 20 or more.That is very unnatural,thus the term non-solar.These wavelengths are MORE PHOTO-ACTIVE THAN THE SUN's RAYS and can cause cellular damage,etc.These rays do not exist in nature because as previously mentioned, our atmosphere will filter them out.To measure or check for UVC requires a separate UVC METER, sold by solarmeter, however, i do not know the model#. I will definately agree with deb-luvs-uros that there is a lot of misinformation on this subject and others, but regardless if the bulb has yet to be proven unsafe, i would go with CMarin that the activeUVHeat bulbs are the only PROVEN SAFE mercury vapor bulbs available at this time, and the others are at the very least cheaply manufactured and highly variable, so you would be wise to let others test them for you to save yourself and your uros the possible trauma.

quote:This is MY forest...

”It is a common misconception that a solarmeter 6.2 registers ONLY the peak sensitivity, when in fact, it is a broadband meter that measures the entire uvb range.”

I am not certain why there is such as misconception when SolarTech clearly states that the meter reads the entire uvb range- 280-320. As I pointed out earlier, the meter reads the entire UVB range but is calibrated to give weight to the wavelength from 290-300.

”It is a new practice to use both a solarmeter 6.2 and a uv index meter. For instance, a reading of 100 microwatts per cm sq. may register as low as 2 on the uv index for one bulb that does not emit LOW WAVELENGTH(non-solar)UVB. The same 100 microwatts per cm sq reading from a bulb that DOES emit the DANGEROUS low wavelengths (such as the wavelengths that the earth's atmosphere filters out) will have a uv index as high as 20 or more.That is very unnatural,thus the term non-solar.

I think you are referring to the % of uvb. I am not certain where the term non-solar comes into play as the dangerous uvc radiation that I think you are referring to that is filtered out by the atmosphere does come from the sun. If solar refers to things generated from the sun, then none of the light emitted from a bulb would actually be solar. If solar refers to the 'type' of light emitted from the sun- then everything (including lower uvc) would be solar.

Are you suggesting that there are bulbs on the market emitting UVC and that a solarmeter 6.2 will read these levels (those below 280) and give an inaccurate reading based on the combination of ALL wavelengths including those below 280? Or are you simply going along with the philosophy that the wavelength from 280-290 is harmful and the 6.2 registers those wavelengths between 280-290 and therefore not accurate for judging reptile bulbs?
If the latter is the case, do you have any credible studies that point to the wavelength of 280-290 being harmful to ‘reptiles’?

”To measure or check for UVC requires a separate UVC METER, sold by solarmeter, however, i do not know the model#.”

I believe that you are referring to the 8.0 but this only registers the harmful radiation in the 246-262 range.

The only reference I made regarding UVC was that you will indeed need a separate meter. Low wavelength UVB has indeed been proven to be harmful.You own a computer, use it to find your own studies, but this will only be beneficial if you actually READ and UNDERSTAND them. I did not myself coin the phrase non-solar, but unless your own bulbs contain a piece of the actual sun, they would indeed be emitting nothing but non solar uv if you insist on interpreting the phrase literally. Now, my uros and I are from EARTH, therefore I would not attempt to expose them to anything not naturally found on EARTH simply to satisfy your curiosity. I find you very annoying, Ms. Wolfram, feel free to get the last word. How many of these bulbs do you own?

The only reference I made regarding UVC was that you will indeed need a separate meter."

I was merely trying to get you to define ‘low wavelength’ as it applied to your post. I specifically asked if your concern was with the wavelength between 280-290 or if you were referring to lower levels in the uvc wavelength. It was a simple yes or no answer.

"Low wavelength UVB has indeed been proven to be harmful'

All wavelengths of UVB as well as UVA have proven to be harmful.

"You own a computer, use it to find your own studies, but this will only be beneficial if you actually READ and UNDERSTAND them."

I have seen quite a bit of data on UVB. I feel that I do a fairly good job of reading and I actually think that I might have learned a thing or two with the data I have read. However, what does this have to do with asking you to clarify the statements made in your post so that I understand your position?

"I did not myself coin the phrase non-solar"

No one said you coined the phrase but if you are going to be a big boy and use it, you should be able to explain it. I had no clue what you meant when you stated that non-solar were those ‘low wavelengths’ that were filtered out by the sun and therefore unnatural. I still do not have a clear answer but I have dismissed it as a poor choice in words/term regardless of who coined it.

Now, my uros and I are from EARTH, therefore I would not attempt to expose them to anything not naturally found on EARTH simply to satisfy your curiosity.

Did someone ask you to subject your earthly uros to some low wavelength to satisfy my curiosity? I simply wanted clarification on the wavelength you were referring to as ‘low’ and dangerous. Lets pretend that you actually answered one of my questions and your answer indicated that you were specifically concerned with the wavelength between 280-290 which we believe the 6.2 would register. I would then be curious to know the percentage of uvb bulbs emitting wavelength in this range, the percentage of UVB emitted in this range, and what studies have shown regarding this specific wavelength and the danger to reptiles. You seemed to be firm with your position/belief so I figured you would be able to point to your references/resources if this was your position.

”I find you very annoying, Ms. Wolfram, feel free to get the last word."

Should I be impressed that you know my name or flattered Mr Jaguarpaws? As long as we are on a last name basis, should I call you Mr Paws?

It is difficult not to get the last word when you end your post with a question.

"How many of these bulbs do you own?"

These bulbs? This is almost as vague as the ‘low wavelength’ reference. If 'these bulbs' refer to the bulb in the first post of this thread- none. If it refers to ‘other’ UVB bulbs- I currently have 23 fully functional Westron bulbs in my possession, 19 EB and 4 SB. If it interests you, I have been tracking UVB levels on all of my Westron bulbs since Nov 2004. But this really has little to do with wanting clarification on your statements.

"As long as we are on a last name basis, should I call you Mr Paws?"

After reading through some of your posts on this forum, I realize that I very well might have mispoken. Let me rephrase my question to ask if I should call you Mr Paws or Ms Paws.

Wanted to see if it was you who "engineered" the hole in the "Uro-cage" but anyway-
here is a site for you to ready yourself for the years ahead:
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/3/378

All jokes aside- search nuero-toxicity mercury, inhalation of vapors mercury, etc. and tell me if you want cheap bulbs anymore. You can research low wavelength uvb for yourself,as well. Goodbye Ms. debb.

Wanted to see if it was you who "engineered" the hole in the "Uro-cage" but anyway

I am a little confused on exactly what you are referring to but if you are speaking of the enclosure I gave input on, you are clueless on what was done as is evident by your statement. Your writing sort of gives the impression of someone typing with a little spiteful envy and I would hate to have people get the wrong impression about you JP. How the uro cage plays into the UVB discussion beats me but hopefully you feel better getting this all off your chest.

” here is a site for you to ready yourself for the years ahead:
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/3/378’

I have no clue whether this link was supposed to be to a specific article from January 2005 that you wanted me to read or just more fluff.

” search nuero-toxicity mercury, inhalation of vapors mercury, etc. and tell me if you want cheap bulbs anymore”

Where did you get the impression that I wanted cheap bulbs? It amazes me how some people attempt to turn things around rather than answering simple questions regarding statements they have made.

If I wanted cheap bulbs, I would not own and promote Westron bulbs. My post had nothing to do with a desire to buy or recommend cheap bulbs, it had everything to do with getting clarification on statements you made regarding dangerous low wavelengths being emitted and data to back your statements. I was truly hoping that you would explain your stance as I have found data that suggest a lower wavelength from 280-290 would be beneficial to reptiles whereas a higher wavelength like 320 could be a detriment. Unfortunately, you have avoided committing to any details regarding your initial statements and prefer to chit chat about surnames and make unjustified snide remarks about work that I did with a manufacturer on a reptile enclosure.

THIS INFORMATION IS ON THE uvguide.co.uk SITE:
radiation below 290-295nm is rarely EVER found on earth.
275-280nm can cause DNA damage(this is nearly at the UVB-UVC boundary and still considered uvb above the kindergarten level)I GUESS YOU MISSED IT!
THIS IS COMMON SENSE:
if a broken thermometer can evaporate toxic levels to poison an entire household, what could happen to humans OR reptiles if a cheap bulb falls apart or otherwise leaks? hmmm...
THIS IS FROM ME TO YOU:
you are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. you can bang your head against the wall, but your head is so overinflated it is just a waste of time, as is "discussing" anything with you.
GOODBYE and GOOD LUCK, ms. debb is OBSESSED with uros.

THIS INFORMATION IS ON THE uvguide.co.uk SITE:
radiation below 290-295nm is rarely EVER found on earth.

I believe that cutoff is actually 290. As you are recommending the activeUVHeat bulbs to others, do you know the wavelength emitted from these bulbs? Are you suggesting that there are no wavelengths in the 290-295 range? Simple answer- yes or no. Come on JP- at least answer this one. Are you suggesting that the bulb you are recommending (activeUVHeat) does not emit any wavelengths in the 290-295 range?

”275-280nm can cause DNA damage(this is nearly at the UVB-UVC boundary and still considered uvb above the kindergarten level)I GUESS YOU MISSED IT! THIS IS COMMON SENSE:”

Maybe you missed the second semester of kindergarten when the other students learned that wavelengths in the remainder of the UVB range (290-320 nm) also cause damage at the molecular (DNA) level?

Is this quote in reference to my comment about coming across data that showed exposure at 280-290 in reptiles was beneficial or are you finally trying to define/clarify the ‘harmful low wavelengths’ you keep referring to?

"if a broken thermometer can evaporate toxic levels to poison an entire household, what could happen to humans OR reptiles if a cheap bulb falls apart or otherwise leaks? hmmm..."

Hmmm, I don’t know- the same thing that would happen if an expensive bulb falls apart or leaks??
I do not know what cheap a$$ bulbs you are buying but I have tested dozens of different bulbs over the years and have yet to have one that falls apart.

”THIS IS FROM ME TO YOU:”

And the other posts were addressed to and written by….? No wonder why we have a communication issue and have difficulty staying on topic.

you are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. you can bang your head against the wall, but your head is so overinflated it is just a waste of time, as is "discussing" anything with you. GOODBYE and GOOD LUCK, ms. debb is OBSESSED with uros.

I almost have the urge to type “I know you are but what am I” after that eloquent departure. ‘Discuss’? I have been trying to get you to clarify your earlier statements so that we could have a discussion but you have been flip floppin all over the place without giving me any clarification or data on your claims. I am still confused on whether your harmful low wavelengths that started this spiel are 275-280, 290-295, a combination of all of these, or something different all together. Hard to argue when the person keeps dodging all over the ring.

actually--obsessed is a strong word. it means you can't focus on ANYTHING else. it denotes mental illness. serial killers are obsessed. i hope we can all eat lunch instead of focusing strictly on our animals, or the animals would suffer. i think everyone needs to chill out. don't like it-don't buy it. can't we just all get along? seriously, though.

Dude, I'm scared now. I hear you knockin' but you can't come in. I am going back to iguanas,man. I was only pointing out some obvious stuff. Cheap mfg., clear glass, somebody needs some FIBER>...Dude...

What's with all the "dude" stuff? Does "dude" have a special meaning? Or is it just the usual teenage vernacular?

You go, Debb!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alot of it's gobblydegoop to us but, we love your logic. Always have.
D&L.

"Alot of it's gobblydegoop to us but, we love your logic"

Heck, I was just attempting to address one comment regarding the Solarmeter 6.2. being unreliable and the wavelength the poster was referring to when he used the term 'low wavelengths'. Unfortunately, I don't think any logic surfaced in this one.

All I can say is OH MY GOD!!! Grow up!
to ms "Deb is obssessed with uros" you are deffinately knowlegable about uro care. I don't think anyone here would dispute that however you don't have to analyze and argue over every tidbit of info that other users type! unless they're posting incorrect or potentially harmfull advice.
I was reading this thread and I LMAO!

Cheers all!
-----
0.1 U.maliensis
2.1 U.geyri
2.2 U. ornatus
0.1 U. macfadyeni

Gexy,

You talk about growing up, then turn around, and make this post more than five weeks after the last post was made in the thread? While I can find a little valuable information within this thread, I cannot say the same about your post. Your post appears to be nothing more than an attempt to refuel the flames of a dead topic as it certainly did not add value to the topic itself.

Your supposed point in your post is that I should not analyze or argue about data unless it is incorrect. This is exactly what I was doing Gexy. If you go back and re-read my post you will see that I did not agree with the statement that Solarmeters are not reliable (therefore felt it was incorrect ) and was trying to determine the posters definition of ‘good uvb’ and ‘non-solar uvb’ to fully understand his/her point.

Then again, I really think that you could care less about whether or not I was posting in regard to incorrect data Gexy. Ever since I pointed out in a post on this forum a couple of years ago inconsistencies in your breeding/incubation data and facts, you have been rather unproductive when responding to my posts. Do you have anything to say about the reliability of Solarmeters?

MERRY CHRISTMAS, DEBB!!
D&L.

"MERRY CHRISTMAS, DEBB!!"

And a Happy New Year to you D&L and everyone else out here on KS.

"MERRY CHRISTMAS, DEBB!!'

And a Happy New Year to you D & L and to all others out here on KS.

Sorry for the duplicate but I did not see the last post so I created another. Wish I could blame it on spiked eggnog but this is not the case. Oh well, the wave added something new

No your honour...I have nothing else to say. You have said it all! Good job! Bravo bravo!.....I just wanted to see if I could still push your buttons!
Cheers!
-----
0.1 U.maliensis
2.1 U.geyri
2.2 U. ornatus
0.1 U. macfadyeni