The Fitbit Community is a gathering place for real people who wish to exchange ideas, solutions, tips, techniques, and insight about the Fitbit products and services they love. By joining our Community, you agree to uphold these guidelines, so please take a moment to look them over.
I agree with many of the others. I know there may not appear to be enough users requesting the bluetooth LE off functionality for fitbit to consider it, but I also know of several hundred, Yes Really, who would consider it, fitbit devices, at my location alone. There are 8,000 military and 12,000 civilians affected by the bluetooth rules at my location alone. I traded a fitbit flex for a first generation jawbone with my son-in-law for that reason. I love the Surge and want one, but I can't justify it if I can't turn the LE radio off while I am at work.
Please don't just consider, but make this an option. You will get a number, Most Likely thousands more at $249 a pop, of new customers with this functionality. Most people I speak with on the military base I work at love the look and function of your products, but won't buy them because they cannot disable the bluetooth. They get written up in sensitive electronic areas for active bluetooth devices and could potentially lose jobs.
One older gentleman specifically stated he came home and threw the device in a drawer because he was written up for a violation at work. He loves the device, but can't afford to lose his job. Thanks for implementing this as soon as possible.
Moderator Edit: Edited title for clarity and word choice
Ok. I went to FitBit's website and had a chat with a customer service person named Jennifer. At first she said that the level of radiation is low and that is why their engineers have kept it on all the time. I mentined to her that people want to have a choice and some work places do not allow any radiating device to be brought in. After several exchanges, she finally agreed to bring it to the attention of their engineers. I suggest other people call or chat with FitBit to let them know about their concerns.
Reading the comments I just want to clarify-when I am not syncing my fitbit, is my fitbit in what you might call "air plane" mode as far as EMF"s is concerned or am I constantly subjecting my body to EMF's by having my fitbit on my body even when it is "off". If so, could I wrap it in something like tin foil?
Although I applaud your effort(s), I'd put the likelihood of someone manning Fitbit's on-line chat having access to their engineers at about zero. The only way Fitbit will entertain this request is for people to flood public review sites like Amazon, exposing the issue to the public at large. Anything less will result in exactly what we've seen here; nothing.
I decided I simply didn't care enough to try to alter the business model of a company that clearly didn't care about my wishes, sold off my Fitbit and moved on. Hell, I've got about 3 old phones that can track my steps and they allow complete control over their use of cellular, wifi, and bluetooth.
Can you imagine a phone manufacturer saying "Our emissions are so much lower than what's allowed by law, we removed your ability to turn the radio on and off. To serve you better."
Well this sucks. I got a Charge 2, looked to turn off device bluetooth, before finding out its not actually a feature and it cant be done.
Now the device has to be returned. Sucks.
Besides the unnecessary bad health effects of having it turned on 24/7 (even if its only in listening mode, it still leaks 25mW/m2 as measured), there is also bad security!
I dont want others to scan/see what device I am wearing and potentially hack it and retrieve all the data on it!
The bluetooth on device should be turned on only when I need it, to sync, when I press and hold the button to select menu "Sync possible", only then should it fire up bluetooth in listening mode, and the smartphone/dongle can sync as normal and turn it self off after syncing or after 30s. Else, bluetooth should be turned off. So Simple.
So now, when Im wearing this, anyone in promiximity can potentially hack the device and get all my health data from it. So stupid.
It's sooo much necessary to be able to turn off the bluetooth when you don't need it. I don't want to see notifications on my tracker or synch while I am sleeping. I don;t want too much radiations around my kids. It would be even better if you could add a scheduling option too to turn off/on bluetooth at certain intervals.
Aside from needless radation 24/7 close to your skin.
Always on bluetooth is a potential security problem, its even today possible ot just scan and determine that a person has such a wearable device and its ID.
This is just waiting for a hacker to scan and steal any data from others peoples trackers, or worse.
There is no data, other than steps, heart rate, and calories, etc., on the tracker, so why would a hacker want to steal that information? There is no personal data on the tracker that would be useful to anyone. But, of course, the hacker could get the MAC address of the tracker for "future reference".
@esteri when not syncing your Bluetooth in the tracker is on listening mode.
What seems to be overlooked in tgis whole thread is tgat anytime electricity runs through any wire or component there will be EMF. The only way to stop this would be to wrap a Faraday cage around your tracker, or to turn the tracjer off, simply turning Bluetooth off is not enough.
But my bigger wonder is what do you do with your phone? If it can receive calls it is putting off way more emf than your tracker is.
Also every wire in the walls put off EMF, i wont mention the hair dryer or toaster. Or what your subjected to by sitting in your car.
The "M" in EMF stands for magnetic, and how do you get away from tgat big magnet called tye earth that your standing on?
@Rich_Laue wrote: What seems to be overlooked in tgis whole thread is tgat anytime electricity runs through any wire or component there will be EMF. The only way to stop this would be to wrap a Faraday cage around your tracker, or to turn the tracjer off, simply turning Bluetooth off is not enough. But my bigger wonder is what do you do with your phone? If it can receive calls it is putting off way more emf than your tracker is. Also every wire in the walls put off EMF, i wont mention the hair dryer or toaster. Or what your subjected to by sitting in your car. The "M" in EMF stands for magnetic, and how do you get away from tgat big magnet called tye earth that your standing on?
You raise valid points, though they have been brought up previously. I fear you are straying toward the "if we cannot eliminate exposure X, then there is no point in addressing exposure Y". It is like saying we shouldn't bother trying to have good in-door air quality because as soon as we leave our homes we are exposed to smog anyway.
Your risk is based upon exposure intensity and exposure duration. Very few people drive motor vehicles for 24 hours each day. Yes the exposure is magnitudes larger, but the duration is shorter.
Similarly, very few people spend much time within the 1-2 feet that electrical wiring emits within their home. It is one of the reasons they don't typically put your breaker panel on the other side of a bedroom wall.
You cite examples like the wiring in your home, but this is an area that has literally already been addressed to control/limit exposure! The area of 24/7 wearables is uncharted territory.
People are asking that they be allowed to determine their own exposure. Don't be too sure that the users of this forum haven't thought about / discussed other sources of EMF.
I think people understand there are much greater (known) threats to our health--that doesn't preclude addressing this one as well.
If you truly want to use a Fitbit and disable bluetooth, you can get a clip on model (One or Zip) and one of these Blackout Pocket (must be Level II). It'll prevent anything from talking to your Fitbit. If you put your phone in it, it'll be off the grid.
And the data coming from the Fitbit device to the syncing device (whether computer, tablet, or phone) is encrypted. So unless you're also weary of online purchases through secure websites, then this isn't an issue either.
I can see this being a legit issue for folks who work with sensitive equipment.
...but for the folks who are mindful about the radiation that a Fitbit emits... Let's put it in perspective. A Fitbit Zip uses a CR2025 battery (165 mAh capacity) and lasts for six months. A Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge has a 3600 mAh battery (typical phone, right?) and it lasts for two days if you're lucky. So between these two devices:
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge: consumes 1800 mAh per day.
Fitbit Zip: consumes 0.92 mAh per day.
So the Zip consumes 0.05% (That's not 5%... that's one twentieth of one percent) of the power of the phone (and I was generous when saying that it'd last two days). Yet, you're worried about the Fitbit's radiation? Dare I ask how you carry your phone?
Or allow me to put it another way, about 18.5 minutes using the phone (touching it, contact with your skin or face) is equivalent to the amout of exposure you'd get from having the Fitbit for a month. Are you giving up your phone yet?
@PureEvil wrote: ...but for the folks who are mindful about the radiation that a Fitbit emits... Let's put it in perspective. A Fitbit Zip uses a CR2025 battery (165 mAh capacity) and lasts for six months. A Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge has a 3600 mAh battery (typical phone, right?) and it lasts for two days if you're lucky. So between these two devices: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge: consumes 1800 mAh per day. Fitbit Zip: consumes 0.92 mAh per day. So the Zip consumes 0.05% (That's not 5%... that's one twentieth of one percent) of the power of the phone (and I was generous when saying that it'd last two days). Yet, you're worried about the Fitbit's radiation? Dare I ask how you carry your phone? Or allow me to put it another way, about 18.5 minutes using the phone (touching it, contact with your skin or face) is equivalent to the amout of exposure you'd get from having the Fitbit for a month. Are you giving up your phone yet?
I'm honestly trying to determine if directly comparing a Fitbit Zip to a Galaxy S7 is pure genius, or utter lunacy.
Full disclosure--I'm leaning toward the later.
My pal's Fitbit (not sure which model) lasts max 3 days. Not sure how that factors into your battery drain for entirely disparate useage scenarios on entirely different devices = comparative radiation exposure assessment...
That's fair. I assume that the amount or radiation emitted is proportional to the amount of battery consumed. It may be a bad assumption.
This is indisputable. A Zip runs for six months on one CR2025 battery; that's 0.92 mAh per day. That's the only Fitbit for which we know the battery size.
I imagine that most other Fitbits are even smaller in charge capacity (due to their time between charges) and the size of the devices (Flex 2 is a truly tiny device), but I don't know what their battery consumption rate would be.
Even if you were to design a device with the purpose of bombarding someone with radiation (which we can all agree the Zip is not), how much could it generate with such a paltry power source? Portable light therapy boxes, which are designed to bombard people with radiation, consume 26 watts. How long could you run such a device on a CR2025 battery?
That said, when you use your smartphone, you are putting your fingers on a surface (screen) that is designed to emit light (radiation). You are literally bombarding radiation onto your skin.
My wireless mouse consumes 2 AA batteries in a couple of months and it obviously uses radio waves to communicate. Is this too a source of worry?
Lerchl found higher rates of cancer among mice exposed to SARs of 0.04 W/Kg, 0.4 W/Kg and 2 W/Kg —and in some cases,the lower the dose, the more cancer. For instance, he saw a higher incidence of lymphoma at the two lower doses than at 2 W/Kg, as shown in the histogram taken from his paper, which has been accepted for publication in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications:
From Lerchl’s BBRC paper, Figure 1; “**” indicates that the result is significant at p<0.01.
To put that in context:
According to test reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for theGalaxy S7 for cellular transmission is 0.62 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.06 w/kg when worn on the body. The wireless router SAR is 0.55 w/kg at the head. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.40 w/kg at the head, 1.50 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.59 w/kg when used as a hotspot.
The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing was 15 mm (about 0.6 of an inch). According to Samsung, "To meet RF exposure guidelines during body-worn operation, the device should be positioned at least this distance away from the body."
0.4 W/Kg shows cancer promotion
1.5 W/Kg is what your phone puts out while magically levitating 15mm away from your body (you use a belt-clip, right?)
Fitbit emitting less than a phone is not an endorsement of its safety. For all we know, phones that put out MORE than 0.4 W/Kg might be safer in the long run. Like I said--wearables are uncharted territory.
There's also this:
In May, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer.
The US government used to suggest a policy of prudent avoidance when it came to man-made sources of radiation. Scientists today suggest adopting the precautionary principle. These directives are incompatible with the purveying mindset that soaking up more and more radiation--through entirely elective exposures--is without risk.
"...and in some cases, the lower the dose, the more cancer..."
You could have 2 cases out of 1000 and you can still claim "in some cases", right?
This is observation correlational or causal? There's a correlation between instances of ice cream sales and drownings. Correlation does not imply causation.
If the SAR for the Fitbit Zip is comparable to the power consumption, does this study have a figure for cancer promotion for 0.0007 w/Kg (1.5 w/Kg x 0.05%), with a shorter separation, of course?
You could have 2 cases out of 1000 and you can still claim "in some cases", right?
I suppose in general conversation "some cases" could be taken to mean that...but I don't believe that's what the paper is saying at all. The paper is likely referencing the results of a number of growths--some cases meaning that lymphoma showed such a result.
This is observation correlational or causal?
If it established a causal relationship it would show up in your Facebook feed. It is a correlation--and one that bears further study as some of the effects seen do not seem to be linear (dose-dependant). It also replicates the findings of earlier studies which adds weight. Full access to the paper is available for $41.95 if you're legitimately interested.
I must have missed where I claimed that it does...
If the SAR for the Fitbit Zip is comparable to the power consumption,does this study have a figure for cancer promotion for 0.0007 w/Kg (1.5 w/Kg x 0.05%), with a shorter separation, of course?
First you take issue with published papers (which, in and of itself is healthy and necessary) but then you follow up by asking me to debate hypotheticals based upon assumptions sprinkled with unknowns. That's hardly going to get us anywhere--especially when exposure is logarithmic.
At the end of the day, this feature request is about allowing end users to decide when and where bluetooth is active. The fact that there is any pushback on this at all is frankly surprising from an end-user perspective. It makes sense if Fitbit is monetizing the data and doesn't want to give up that revenue I suppose.
I do not take issue with the published paper. I've only seen the fragments that you have posted. I do not have the inclination to spend $40+ to discuss it.
Isn't this statement: "0.4 W/Kg shows cancer promotion"
A correlation? I mean unless they conducted double-blind tests, where they subjected a test group to that radiation and withheld it from the control group. And did the test group show statistically significant higher instances of cancer promotion in the test group vs. the control group? No? Then it's not causal, it's correlational, right?
The study with the male rats and cell phone radiation sounds more legit, but that's cell phone radiation... A device that consumes 2000x more power than a Fitbit Zip. This is a bit like saying we know drinking a beer with dinner is lethal because if you drink 2000 beers in one sitting you'd die.
Oh, I've been wrong before. I remember discussing with my wife that the effects of BPA in water bottles can't be that bad, but I was wrong about that and the industry shifted appropriately. For all I know, the same may be true for wearables with bluetooth, but as far as I know there have been no (double-blind, controlled) studies conducted with wearables using bluetooth LE.
As to whether Fitbit is monetizing the data... Fitbit is very explicit in their privacy policy; they do not sell the information to anyone. If you get premium, which I had for while, they show you how you're doing compared to folks like you. I suppose you can say that they're monetizing data that way. All this data summarized and anonymized.
That said, this feature request is about disabling bluetooth. It's not about whether Fitbit collects data, it's about how they collect their data. Folks have mentioned Garmin (I had a Vivofit and it also synced wirelessly) and Jawbone. I believe both of these entities work like Fitbit. They collect information from the device, push it to their servers, and the app/website merely reflects what's on their servers.
The fact of the matter is that Fitbit were designed the way that they are because generally people want convenience. I may know people with land lines, but I know of no one with a corded phone. You can certainly use laptops with an ethernet cable instead of wi-fi, but do you? For wearables, convenience means that data is collected automatically, periodically without the need to plug it in.
That said, do I understand that some folks (military and folks who work with sensitive equipment) are still in need to disable bluetooth. I think this feature request has merit on just this. However, I do not think that Fitbit should feel compelled to implement this feature based on some folks wanting to minimize/eliminate exposure to radiation no matter how small when there have been no studies to establish a causal link to any harmful effects to this level of radiation.
I'm not a Fitbit employee, but I believe that the reason why Fitbit has yet to implement it is because it would take a lot of engineering effort to implement. To disable bluetooth, would mean that you'd need to push a firmware upgrade to the devices and you'd need to find a different way to sync the device. All that said, I believe that you can sync the Surge and Blaze with their USB charging cables. So maybe adding an option to disable bluetooth altogether on these models may do the trick. Note: this is speculation on my part.
I have to seriously ask myself *why* this option hasn't been implemented. I understand the privacy policy well enough, but I feel that the resistance must be related somehow to finances, otherwise why wouldn't they implement a feature that stands to otherwise *gain* them money? *scratches head* That said, I was forced to move on from Fitbit (though I miss the community aspect, so I hold out hope for fitbit despite every sign to the contrary...) and although I tried a Garmin (and liked it well enough) I eventually ended up with a GearFit 2 (Samsung, tried since I already had a samsung phone) and I am *really* happy with it. It took some getting used to (the software) but the band itself has ALL the info I need, displayed in a really pleasing (and customisable) way. I am super happy with my purchase and enjoy that I can utilize, or turn off, the bluetooth features as I wish. The silence on FitBit's part doesn't give me much hope though, and this coming from a long time user who has at least THREE unused Fitbits sitting in her desk atm, and that doesn't include ones I had previous or gifts outside of my immediate family. 😞
@PureEvil wrote: The study with the male rats and cell phone radiation sounds more legit...
The NTP radiation project, which has been underway for more than a decade, is the most expensive ever undertaken by the toxicology program. More than $25 million has been spent so far. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results
The nomination for NTP to study cell phone radiofrequency radiation was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
These are the largest, most complex studies ever conducted by NTP.
...the design of this study was presented at an annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society prior to the start of these studies. The overwhelming opinion expressed by the meeting participants was that this would be the largest and most comprehensive study in animals exposed to cell phone radiation, and that the results from this study would trump all other animal carcinogenicity studies of this agent.
I'm so glad that the largest study of its kind "sounds more legit" to you.
With all due respect, this will be the last time we correspond--you clearly don't take the time to read anything you're provided.
@PureEvil wrote: ...I mean unless they conducted double-blind tests, where they subjected a test group to that radiation and withheld it from the control group. And did the test group show statistically significant higher instances of cancer promotion in the test group vs. the control group? No? Then it's not causal, it's correlational, right?
Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls.
...just four points of reference, with fairly low spatial and temporal resolution, was enough to uniquely identify 95 percent of [users]
You mentioned previously that your wife was right about BPA and you ended up underestimating the risk. You should be asking yourself "did she just get lucky, or is there a reason she got it right?"
Compare her approach to your own--perhaps there's something to learn there.
I'll concede that the studies on cell phone level radiation are legit:
"NTP to study cell phone radiofrequency radiation was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration" "...the largest and most comprehensive study in animals exposed to cell phone radiation..."
Can you at least admit that this study says absolutely nothing about the level of radiation on wearables with bluetooth LE? And granted I have not read through all the papers and the links that you have posted, but I assume that if the papers made such a claim about that level of radiation (wearable, bluetooth LE level) you would've posted it. To quote one study and claim that it's similar is a bit like saying that a study on long haul truck drivers can be applied to casual motorcycle riders by virtue of them both being motorized vehicles. It can't.
Baking in the sun for hours is not good for you, but a few minutes of exposure to sun will promote vitamin D and is good for you. The degree of the exposure matters.
The point I was making about the plastic bottles and BPA's is that while personally believed that the industry had done sufficient testing on this to be safe, it turned out that the studies proved otherwise.
Another thing to take into account is had you made changes, would you be better off? You may switch to a stainless steel water bottle instead of plastic. Are they safe? I know that many years ago, some folks stopped using aluminium ice cube trays for fear of leaching and they moved to... you guessed it, plastic ones... likely ones with BPA. So these folks ended up moving from something that they perceived may be dangerous to something that actually was.
If you're mindful (over-cautious?) about what you want to avoid, do your actions ultimately lead you in a direction that's worse? Want to avoid sugar? There's saccharin. Want to avoid fat? There's olestra (that's right, the stuff that caused 'anal leakage').
I understand the desire of wanting to stay safe, but in the absence of any conclusive evidence... Is there any reason to believe that a wearable that uses bluetooth LE poses any more risk to you than having your wi-fi router next to your desk? Than having a cell phone tower on your building at work? etc.
Up voting and requesting ability to turn off blue tooth on the tracker it's self. I would like if could be backwards compatible to include older models but have a feeling it's not possible.
i hope some day they can roll in an oxymeter? The device that reads blood oxygen levels. Research seems to show it's possible through wrists and bone material using new tech.
Please provide a way to disable bluetooth on the fitbit device. I just started using fitbit, but I'm uncomfortable with the exposure to radiation. I would buy another one if it had the ability to disable BT. I would hardly ever use BT if I had that option. Maybe I'd turn it on once or twice a week to sync with the app. As it is, I need to limit using my fitbit, and could not recommend a fitbit to others.
Just received my [previously discussed in this thread competing product]--kept looking for a way to turn bluetooth off and it took me forever to remember that it only transmits when you tell it to. Imagine that.
Your competitor(s) offer devices that allow you to choose when bluetooth is active, and when it is not. Their stock is rising.
Fitbit sadly does not allow this--and its stock price is *clears throat* not rising, to be kind.
At this juncture, Fitbit would be well served to explore new avenues of growth. Name me lower hanging fruit than this feature request.
Join us on the Community Forums!
Community Guidelines
Learn the Basics
Join the Community!
Not finding your answer on the Community Forums?
Go to the Help Site
Contact Support