Myth 12: “The droplets produced by foggers are much bigger than in natural fog and do not work the same as in the wild”

A fabricated objection rooted in pride, not science — blocking progress with misinformation

This myth, originating from certain circles in Germany, is a weak and evidence-free attempt to discredit fogging as a valid — even dominant — hydration method. While German herpetoculture is among the most advanced in the world, built on science, precision, and tradition, it has paradoxically launched multiple offensives against fogging. These attacks ignore global publications and evidence-based experience, relying instead on speculation and anonymous commentary. The most vocal critics remain underground, raising theoretical concerns without firsthand experience. By denying fog-drinking as a method, they eliminate any factual basis for their claims.

The story is remarkable.

Since the 1990s, I've successfully applied nighttime, low-temperature fogging not only for chameleons, but also for:

• Rhacodactylus geckos
• African Holaspis lacertids
• Palearctic vipers (Vipera, Montivipera, Macrovipera)
• African Atheris
• Asian Trimeresurus
• Malagassy Langaha
• And many other species from fog-rich, cool environments

This wasn't even my original idea. I was inspired by Swiss and German herpetologists who kept and bred Palearctic vipers like V. cf. ursinii, V. berus, V. nikolskii, and V. kaznakowi. They studied natural biotopes in detail, even importing soil and plants from their biotopes to recreate them in spacious paludariums. I followed their lead, bought my first fog generator from a hospital (used for nebulization therapy), and began integrating foggers into my experiments and breeding setups.

I studied fog across multiple continents and gained clarity on its function. Initially, fogging devices were rare and expensive. Today, foggers are widely available and affordable — and most of them, when they truly produce fog, work effectively.

It became increasingly clear that chameleons in the wild drink far less than we assume. Opportunities to drink are so limited that they must rely on strategies beyond rain and dew. Dew evaporates quickly, often before chameleons can access it. It's unrealistic to believe they meet hydration needs by licking tiny droplets that vanish once the sun rises. In many regions, rain is absent for months, and liquid water simply isn't available.

The solution is simple: Chameleons don't rely on liquid water alone. They consume water-rich insects and — critically — they inhale fog (and water vapor as an integral part of the air) during sleep, gaining weight through respiration.

I conducted fieldwork, lab observations, and collaborated with dozens of enthusiasts in semi-controlled conditions. We reached consistent conclusions:

1. Low nighttime humidity causes measurable weight loss,

2. High humidity prevents dehydration,

3. High humidity combined with fog leads to weight gain and hydration.

In 2020, I published my thesis on this topic (Nečas 2020). Two of four peer reviewers recommended against publication, not due to data, but based on their belief that "if it were true, the community would already be using it." This resistance was ideological, not scientific.

Then came the German offensive — in waves.

First claim: "There is no fog in Madagascar." Some even tried to manipulate locals and nature guides into confirming this falsehood. In reality, Madagascar has fog — regionally, seasonally, and by altitude — especially in areas with high chameleon density and diversity. Until now, one of the most reputable sites on Madagascar Chameleons (MadCham) still claims a false information on absence of fog in some regions of Madagascar: "Some even only have some form of precipitation on a daily basis (e.g. the extreme south), some have virtually no fog or dew all year round. So not all chameleons in Madagascar come into contact with fog regularly or at all – it all depends on where their habitat is." An easy to prove false claim, just see the climate charts of any chameleon biotopes including the semiarid South.

Social media was flooded with daytime photos of sunny landscapes, captioned "no fog here." But none of these images showed nighttime or early morning, when fog actually appears. This falsification failed. Expeditions led by experts like Bill Strand confirmed massive fog presence as addition to many posts of myself in Facebook and YouTube. In fact, fog in Madagascar can be so dense that nighttime searches must be sometimes abandoned. Visibility drops, paths become treacherous, and one risks injury or getting lost.

Second claim: "Fogger tubes grow mold and spread pathogens." No evidence. No photos. Just hateful comments. Most commercial foggers kill germs via high-frequency piezoelectric vibrations. In my experiments, even a deliberately uncleaned fogger — with wrinkled tubes and untreated tap water — showed no significant bacteria growth. While regular cleaning is good practice indeed, the fear is unfounded.

Third claim: "Fogging causes respiratory infections (RI)." This originated from a single undocumented case — an oral statement from a private individual who refused to reveal their identity. Fogging was misused during daytime at high temperatures. No other evidence exists. And, the risk is to be mitigated by following the recommendation not to use fogging at temperatures above 18 degrees Celsius. 

Meanwhile, fogging spread rapidly across the USA, supported by thousands of positive reports. As usual, credit for its initiation faded, and others began claiming they'd always used foggers — or even invented the method themselves.

Recent claim: During an official certification course for German herpetoculturists — under the auspices of the German government and a highly reputable herpetological organization — instructors refused to recommend nighttime fogging. Their argument? "The droplets produced by foggers are much bigger than in natural fog and do not work the same." It is partly synchronised by the statements of Madcham.de (which substantially changed the tone and replaced the original texts in last years from blank statements against the fogging to milder tone, however absolutely ignoring all evidence on fogging as a beneficial proven method. It only arguments with human medicine based practice of bio usability of smaller droplets, ignoring that chameleons do not chose the size of the droplets of the fog according to their usability but they are simply exposed to what is available: and they thrive).

This is demonstrably false.

Droplet Size Comparison

Source                                               Droplet Size Range (µm)
 Natural Fog                                            1–40
 Ultrasonic Foggers                               1–10
 Thermal Foggers                                   5–30
 Cold Foggers (ULV)                             10–30
 High-Pressure Mist Systems              5–15

Natural fog droplets typically range from 1 to 40 micrometers, with peak concentrations around 10–15 µm. Commercial foggers produce droplets well within this range. The difference lies only in how the droplets are formed — not in their size or function.

The fog created by foggers and natural fog is completely equivalent, and there is no real reason to reject it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't see fog. Since we do see it, it is the same water-saturated air-water suspension — just formed differently. Natural fog arises through the condensation induced by cooling of a saturated 100% air-water solution, while artificial fog is created through mechanical fragmentation of water into tiny fog particles.

Benefits of fogging

• Fog is a dominant natural hydration mechanism, it hydrates the natural way

• It hydrates slowly and gradually and maintains the homeostasis

• It prevents forming hemipeneal plugs

• It prevents intestinal inflammations caused by osmosis due to excessive intake of hypotonic liquid water

• It prevents the cages from forming excessive water to be solved by complicated draining systems

• It prevents eye injuries caused by high pressure misters

• It hydrates the plants natural way and cleans regularly their surface

• It is easily available and cheap - practically, every fogger producing fog can be used

The Reality

• Fog is a natural hydration mechanism

• When practiced at night and under 18°C, it is safe

• Overfogging can be managed with intermittent exposure and regular monitoring of weight, feces, and urates

Final Message

Listen to science and evidence. 

Do not trust blank statements with no factual basis. 

Be careful, use fog at low temperatures, at night and sanitize often the fogging devices.

Fogging works — and denying it only delays progress.

Fogging Myths: The Double Standard We Need to Talk About

Critics of fogging often cite respiratory risks — but their arguments rely on oversimplifications and selective skepticism.

Yes, fogging mist varies in droplet size — but so does natural fog. The lifecycle of fog in nature isn't replicated in terrariums, true. But ultrasonic foggers don't produce a single droplet size either. It depends on membrane design and frequency. So how can anyone claim to know what every fogger emits?

The claim that fogging is only safe below 18°C and in sterile conditions? That's like saying UVB or fat-soluble vitamins are dangerous — which they are, if misused. But we don't ban them. We educate. We calibrate. We improve.

It is the same as with fat-soluble vitamins. If the dosage is too low, there's a problem. If it's too high, it becomes a serious problem. But if the dosage is approximately right, they are beneficial. The same applies to UV exposure. Too much causes major health issues; too little — even worse. I've seen countless cases of hypovitaminosis and hypervitaminosis, burns and blindness from excessive UV, and thousands of cases of metabolic bone disease (MBD) due to its absence. These are not theoretical risks — they are real, documented, and frequent.

So, do veterinarians avoid using fat-soluble vitamins or UV just because improper use can cause harm? No. They use them responsibly, because their correct application is essential to health. So why the double standard when it comes to fogging?

What about the damage from chronic dehydration? The intestinal inflammation from excessive liquid water intake? The unnatural compensation behavior caused by dry nighttime air? These are real, documented issues — yet they're ignored.

And if someone claims "fogging causes lung problems," where's the evidence? Where are the citations? Why link to articles that don't even address the claim?

Fogging, like any tool, demands responsibility — not rejection.

For those who want to dive deeper, here are studies worth reading:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809521003215

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809524003521

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/11305/2022/acp-22-11305-2022.pdf

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/3/258

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6468117

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/11/2971

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8145257

Let's stop cherry-picking data. Let's start applying science — not fear.