You just used me to me
.
I like how the first link is
@cyberlocc informative post. I think there might be some confusion.
LOL, ya that was a good one.
Oh wow. My bad.
@cyberlocc - can you help clarify what you meant? I reread that post many, many times trying to understand the science behind why red lights are bad. Sounds like I misunderstood. Everyone just says they are bad and to not use them. I was trying to understand WHY... you can see that in the 2nd link.
Ya I think I was confused about what you were saying, or you were by what I was.
When I spoke about red light, and the alteration of color vision and UVA, I meant adding reds during the day. A red light, as a lone source for instance (outside of UVB of course). Not during the night time, and when I read what you said I took it as a long term damage to the parietal eye (as I have seen that said by people, but never any reasoning or evidence of such) or to the cones of vision. Which I dont see how red light could affect the eye in a long term way, just night light is generally frowned upon.
Now for the same reason I do not see how it could damage, is the same logic the company's that make those bulbs use to think they are okay.
Here is a great article that touches on it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060415111626.htm
So the consensus seems to be, that the parietal eye only has photo receptiveness of Blue and Green, therefore it cannot register red color spectrum. To that end, a red light in theory should not bother a chameleons sleep cycle, however its said that it does. I truly have not seen or experienced either of these, never tried to use a "red" light at night. So I am not sure tbh, if they can sense that red light or not. Obviously we have too schools of thought on this, we have the pet company's selling these lights and the community of keepers advising against them.
Alot of it could in fact come down to both camps being right, at face value. The keepers are right that the bulbs are interrupting to sleep of their chams, and the science behind the idea of them from the company's that make them logic is also sound. It may in fact be the execution in the product that is in fact flawed.
As I spoke of, with the cheap LEDs in that post you linked, the same likely applies here. The company's went out to produce a "Red Light" and in that they took a bulb and tinted the glass thinking "Okay, we have red light" however they really dont, they have a white light with a slight red tint. On the surface, to us this light appears red, and it is. However its not a red light in the essence of the spectrum of light that the photo receptors do not detect. Like calling a 2700k a "red Light", its not Far Red light, its not even Photo red light, its just the right blend of spectrum and tinting to make it appear to us as a "Red Light", when in reality its green light tinted.
Either way in regards to this particular case, to @
Lfirgard or anyone else requiring night heat, I think the safest option is that of substitution, as OP has said there is Ceramic heat emitters, and there is Infared lights now available to us. Both of which, do not waste power on emitting light, and they release the infrared that is needed to heat to the bone, deeply, they are preferable at any case so just going with that and leaving the why out of it is probably the best course, however if we must have an answer as to why, I would think its in the execution, we would need to test the "red lights" and see what spectrums they are actually emitting. That might be a fun project to do, when I get the time
.
Oh and great video, I liked it alot
, going to watch some more of them
