jaylw314 Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 25 minutes ago, Shadrach said: I could see the following morning, but even today I still feel light sensitive. Very uncomfortable but the anxiety of being unable to see makes it much worse. Interestingly the bulb is a mercury lamp rated at just 60W. Many folks seem surprised that just a few seconds of exposure did this but there's just no other explanation. I have a new found respect for the damage UV can cause. Huh, it's hard to imagine a 60W UV bulb could cause a corneal burn, but the other symptoms you described are consistent. Most bug zappers use two 20W UV fluorescent bulbs in tandem. weird... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted September 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, jaylw314 said: Huh, it's hard to imagine a 60W UV bulb could cause a corneal burn, but the other symptoms you described are consistent. Most bug zappers use two 20W UV fluorescent bulbs in tandem. weird... Perhaps it was proximity. The bulb must be inserted into the top of metal cylinder (like inserting a dipstick but with very close tolerances). It's indeed possible that I was just a few inches from the bulb during insertion. Either way, there is nothing else I was exposed to. Perhaps the bulb was stronger than it is spec'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, Shadrach said: Perhaps it was proximity. The bulb must be inserted into the top of metal cylinder (like inserting a dipstick but with very close tolerances). It's indeed possible that I was just a few inches from the bulb during insertion. Either way, there is nothing else I was exposed to. Perhaps the bulb was stronger than it is spec'd. Oh yes, proximity would be a factor. The whole inverse-square thing Was it a bare bulb, or did it have a phosphor coating? If it was a bulb for water treatment, I'd imagine it had no phosphor coating, which would make the source of light very small and intense (it's similar to HID's). That still wouldn't explain the keratitis, but it would be higher intensity would be more likely to cause some retinitis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted September 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said: Oh yes, proximity would be a factor. The whole inverse-square thing Was it a bare bulb, or did it have a phosphor coating? If it was a bulb for water treatment, I'd imagine it had no phosphor coating, which would make the source of light very small and intense (it's similar to HID's). That still wouldn't explain the keratitis, but it would be higher intensity would be more likely to cause some retinitis. No coating. Very bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Shadrach said: No coating. Very bright. Don't do that again! Yes, I know, one of the more unhelpful statements I've come up with Even a 60W incandescent light from a few inches away is nothing to sniff at... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Keep in mind the rating of 60w doesn’t tell us very much about how much UV it is putting out... Much of the 60 is going to be just heat... I tried to look up the bulb manufacturer I was familiar with... but there site seems to be off line... further searching..... I found a seller of the bulbs... Hanovia is the company https://www.cureuv.com/products/hanovia-12-inch-300-wpi-uv-lamp They indicate the bulb produces 300 watts/linear inch... So... total wattage depends on the length of the bulb.... A 12” bulb gets incredibly hot.... and usually gets a cooling system to go with it.... Either way, the bulb wattage doesn’t tell much about the UV exposure... at least not to the end user... In the industrial version I had used... there was a shutter to go with that... If the machine stopped for a few minutes.... the bulb stayed on, but a shutter closed over it to block the dangerous light... If the machine stopped for extended periods... the shutter closed and the bulb was turned off... All of this was automatic driven by a PLC... (programmable logic controller) So.... If you have a UV light... don’t be looking at it, until you know more about it... I get the feeling the bug attractor lights may be of a different / safe wavelength... as they are often exposed to everyone and everything... Strong UV light has a tendency to destroy paints, and surfaces... like being in the sun in Florida..... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Ellis Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 On 9/20/2019 at 10:41 PM, carusoam said: curing UV fillings... if you work in a dentist office... chem reaction initiated by UV energy. Dental curing lights are no longer UV lights. They were originally UV lights when first introduced back in the 1960's but have since been replaced by LED or halogen lights emitting a slightly longer wavelength of visible light. They are mainly LED lights now. The shorter UV wavelength of light did not penetrate the composite deeply enough to provide an adequate cure. So a little longer wavelength is used emitted by either LED or halogen bulbs. We use an orange type protective device for our eyes because the light is extremely bright and intense and you would be seeing a big blue spot in your vision for hours if you look at one and possibly getting some eye damage as well. You are correct that it is a chemical reaction initiated by light energy. However, the composite, even if left out on a counter, will harden (cure) with regular room light although it would take much longer. I have a very bright dental light that I wear that is connected to my loupes and I have to put an orange cover over it to prevent it from curing the composite while I am actually placing it in the tooth. It would cure with this white light in a matter of less than a minute or two before I have time to manipulate it and sculpt it unless I have the orange blocker in front of it. Probably too much information. I could have left it with "heck no we don't use UV anymore" 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Thanks, Greg. The extra detail is always appreciated. Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 hey @Shadrach, is your vision still recovering ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Heene Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 On 9/20/2019 at 3:35 PM, Shadrach said: https://www.zoro.com/vitapur-replace-lamp-standard-output-vuv-h645b-guvl-600h/i/G5310790/#restrictions @DXB @steingar Not a single warning on the package other than the stupid Prop 65 (Everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer) Everything in California causes cancer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted September 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 hours ago, jaylw314 said: hey @Shadrach, is your vision still recovering ok? Vision has been much better if not a touch blurry since Friday. I was about 85% back after 24ish hours with the rest coming back more slowly. Still a bit light sensitive. Living in sunglasses. Thank you for asking! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 48 minutes ago, Shadrach said: Vision has been much better if not a touch blurry since Friday. I was about 85% back after 24ish hours with the rest coming back more slowly. Still a bit light sensitive. Living in sunglasses. Thank you for asking! Phew, that's a relief! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 25, 2019 Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, jaylw314 said: hey @Shadrach, is your vision still recovering ok? Figured he was when he started using normal-sized font rather soon after his first post. Hope the rest clears up soon, Ross. I'm no ophthalmologist, but do have some eye experience from a previous job. A surprising degree of vision distortion is caused by how much attention you pay to it. Do try to ignore any blurry spots or halos for a couple of weeks (difficult I know). Edited September 25, 2019 by Hank 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted September 25, 2019 Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Hank said: Figured he was when he started using normal-sized font rather soon after his first post. I totally hadn't thought of that or made that connection! I thought @Shadrach was just using a bigger font for a point of emphasis 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted September 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 @Hank @jaylw314 Very astute observation on the font size Hank! I don't have a recollection of increasing the font size for my first post but what was comfortable last Friday looks huge today. I must not have been as far in my recovery as I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.