So, if it's obvious that uv exposure CAN be damaging, it only makes sense to only expose our dragons to the lowest level that still allows for adequate d3 synthesis. And this includes lower values for skin mutated genes.
So, if it's obvious that uv exposure CAN be damaging, it only makes sense to only expose our dragons to the lowest level that still allows for adequate d3 synthesis. And this includes lower values for skin mutated genes.
claudiusx":2gx7xkh7 said:You still didn't comment on my two points at the top of my post.
Or any of the other points I made. You could at least try to discuss them instead of circumventing them with other comments.
-Brandon
kingofnobbys":382q1nzb said:
source https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/australia/alice-springs-climate#uv_index & more details are available from BOM's site.
and at the sounthern extreme of their natural range
Aaradimian":2ydzne29 said:CX/KN: Putting aside the obvious love fest in this thread :lol: , here's a good breakdown of UV considerations from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK401584/
Conveniently, they list Denver, CO in 1.3.1 Fig 3 (where I'm located). To CX's point about microclimate, this is especially pertinent here because I'm at "a mile high", but within an hour I can almost triple my altitude. According to this article, for every 300m, irradiance increases about 4%. Of course that altitude change comes with an adiabatic lapse rate of about 6*F per 1000 ft, so it's not really beardie friendly at 14,000 ft. Summers here are hot and dry, and my guys love being outside. Winters are not bad in Denver, but not suitable for them to be outside except snuggled against me in the folds of a jacket.
<<< True .
And also less atmosphere ==> less absorption of UVA , UVB and UVC by the atmosphere , hence at 14k feet altitude at any given latitude , the UV-Index will be significantly higher than at sea level at the same latitude.
I think I have a monogram that show how to calculate the increase in UV-Index with altitude stashed away somewhere, just can't pit my fingers on it ATM.
To KN's point about the equivalence (or lack there of), of human vs lizard skin, I completely agree. As seen in that article I posed about mold, biological systems are all over the map in terms of tolerance to various things. Tardigrades are masters of survival in conditions that would crisp human and beardie alike, for instance. It would be good to know what an optimal dose would be for beardies to keep them healthy. Just like there seems to be a lot of ambiguity about what is healthy sun exposure in humans, it'd be nice if there was a body of research we could hang our hats on when trying to advise people about best husbandry practices. "Get a Reptisun or Arcadia tube" is all well & good in that we have our own experiences to point to the fact that it does no obvious harm to use them, but it's sloppy work IMO.
Not correct. All those charts are for noon time averages, not daily averages. Clearly noon being the highest uvi levels, if you averaged the days uvi levels they would be much lower. So you're going to base your recommendation of 15 hours of uv exposure a day on only 1 hour of data from their wild habitat? An hour that they are usually not even in the sun for?kingofnobbys":3r1yvuoa said:If you bother to check (drill down into) the BOM data (available to anyone) that data is directly drawn from there.
http://www.bom.gov.au/uv/ shows how.
ie the data come from the metadata that is used to create this http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/meteye/
and
for summer av UV-Index
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/uv-index/index.jsp?period=sum
Summer Average for Adelaide is UV-Index = 11 to 12.
Summer Average for Alice Springs is UV-Index = just shy of 14.
Don't humor yourself, I never called it an article. I clearly said I would copy my thread from the hidden forum over to the public.kingofnobbys":3r1yvuoa said:Now regarding your "article" , viewtopic.php?f=6&t=249953&p=1894678&view=show#p1894678 , I don't see any hard scientific evidence cited there , just opinions and inferences , ie nothing additional to anything you've already claimed.
Ok, you didn't provide any science for this statement either. Your assumption that it's not similar, is just the same as someone elses assumption that it is similar. Although on this one, I'll take the doctor who has been studying reptiles and uv lighting for decades over yours, no offense of course :wink:kingofnobbys":3r1yvuoa said:And I've already addressed the assumption that reptile skin response to UVB is not the same as human skin response to UVB to claim reptile (p.vitticepts in particular skink responds most effectively in p.synthesis of VitD3 at UV-Index about 3 is a nonsense assumption that has zero scientific evidence (data) to support it. Human skin response to UVB is unlikely to be a good analog for P.Vitticepts skin respond to UVB.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?