Do I need the protective UV glasses if I'm only planning on using this for detecting pet urine?
1709902
Hello, HG, I have to admit I have twice now used the blacklight flashlight at night just to look for pet urine and I haven't been wearing protective UV glasses. I just had a long discussion about this with my spouse who was a scientist and who told me that for my small use of that flashlight there is very little likelihood of my having any damage to my eyes; however, "little likelihood" is not a comforting thought to me and so I think I will acquire a pair of those glasses. I don't like to take chances with my eyes. Thank you for mentioning this possible problem.
1709903
UV-B is the UV you need to worry about, but it's in the 280nm - 315nm range. UV-A is essentially what's known as blacklight, in the 315nm - 400nm range. Starting at 400nm, we get violet, of the visible and non-ultra kind. So this 395nm light is at the safe end of blacklight. No need to worry. It's OK for lighting up phosphorescent material, but not even close to the kind of UV you get at the tanning salon.
1709904
I believe the answer is "yes" due the wavelength of the UV light (it doesn't matter what you're looking at - it's the light that's harmful). The glasses are cheap protection for your eyes.
1709905
Nope, just turn off the room lights and of course don't point the flashlight at anyone's eyes. You'll be amazed at all it reveals.
1709906
You should always wear protective classes when dealing with UV, specially when there is no oher light source, my eyes get strained when looking for scorpions in pitch black nights, however, for pet urine detection at home would be alot easier and you should be fine for a few seconds
270527
Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak. Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to... » Read More Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe.I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak. « Show Less
874343
its harmful ultraviolet rays - same as when you purchase sunglasses with ua protection
628756
polarized glasses will blot out the image regardless. I don't think the Giotto protective film has any effect.
1016404
Hi Mary, We are still working on sourcing the yellow glasses, but I can assure you it is not entirely necessary to have them to spot pet stains.I will ensure to update the listing when I have sourced them.
1917786
It is up to you and your prescription lens provider. You can add UV protection to the clear lens when you order them. I did not as I assumed I would have the sunglasses "down" most of the time. I do add UV protection to my normal glasses that I wear every day.
691897
It blocks blue light regardless of it's source, artificial or natural. And I just got my UV meters out and for instance the total UV (UVA + UVB) measured was about 1.6mW/cm^2 and UVB alone measured 113 uW/cm^2. With the glasses placed over the sensors they measure 0.00mW/cm^2 and 4uW/cm^2 respectively. The UV meter also measures 4 indoors so I think the that is a calibration issue and it is really 0 for UVB. UVB is easily blocked by plastic even if not tinted. So I would say the answer is yes, it blocks UV and blue light.
2276391
Not sure. I wasnt too concerned because my regular glasses have both UVA and UVB protection.
1945228
They have an IR-3 or IR-5 rating and an ANSI Z87.1 that requires listing the UV protection level but I couldn't find it anywhere on the goggles or any sites offering them. I use them for glass and metal working but you might hold off using them for UV until you know for sure. Most IR rated optics do block UV but I'm not sure if that's intrinsic. It's the opposite end of the spectrum that these are explicitly designed to protect your eyes from.
1053002
Yes, you should be able to see it. Just to be sure, take it into a dark room. If you can see a light blue glow then the UV bulb has gone bad.
1758894
Absolutely! Make sure you get the yellow glasses. At my house it pops like a bluish- purple florescence. After you clean the urine spot it will still show under the light but very faded. Excellent purchase.
1375797
I don't know if the light is designed to have that function. I was strictly using the light for urine detection.
2225907
You CANNOT see the UV light. When the UV light is engaged, there is a bright blue indicator light. However, this is not the UV light. The blue indicator light will not damage your eyes or skin. The actual UV lightbulb is mostly protected from exposure inside the filter's housing. I believe the warning in the instructions refers to viewing the light when the purifier is disassembled.
270528
No more then any other lens. I use a UV filter to protect the lens/glass but not required. If you choose to you can use other select filters.
270526
Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe. I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak.
1077308
As far as I know, the glass is multicoated, which is similar to have a high quality UV filter (like b+w). I have the first version and a b+w filter, which is better, if by some reason it gets scratched, it's something disposable, not like a lens. But who knows maybe they corrected some CA or barreling which would be a wise move, if so, then it would be worth the extra money.
846894
The UV Pet Urine Detector requires AAA batteries and they are provided in the kit.