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
"Your competitor(s) offer devices that allow you to choose when bluetooth is active, and when it is not. Their stock is rising."
Wow, there's a juicy "correlation implies causation" generalization. In fact, here's one correlation that you posted earlier in the thread. Naturally you must think that crude oil imports in Normay causes drivers to be killed in collisions with railway trains.
Please have Bluetooth on and off an option. I take it off whenever I can. I read there are other devices with this option so I may just go that route if it takes a while for this to happen. Sincerely Mark
@krous, keep in mind that is for cell phone level radiation. A Fitbit Zip, for instance, consumes around 1/2000 of the power of a Samsung Galaxy S7, so if the RF emissions are comparable, then it'd be about 1/2000 of the emissions of a typical phone.
The level of exposure matters. For instance, baking in the sun for hours is harmful... 10-15 minutes of sun exposure is good for you (promotes Vitamin D). This is also radiation.
Have there been any studies conducted on RF transmissions by wearables?
@Birt Staying active and fit is why we're all here.
In case you missed it, on page 14 PureEvil and I have an exchange or two regarding the current state of research into RF. I encourage you to do your own research, and invite you to read the blog of Dariusz Leszczynski. He was an expert panel member of the World Health Organization's International Agency on Research on Cancer.
The assumption--and it is exactly that--an assumption--that lower power density is intrinsically safer with regards to non-thermal effects is being challenged. Experiments with mice (now replicated) have shown cancer promotion at levels well within current safety standards--in some cases the lower levels of exposure resulted in greater growth.
You can either choose to believe that human beings are no more complex than bags of water, and as long as you don't heat that water past a certain point you can't do damage to them--or you can view human beings as incredibly complex organisms with layers of checks and balances that react and adapt to external stimuli.
Our current RF safety standards assume the former.
Stay fit!
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
With so much interest, I can't understand why Fitbit wouldn't add this feature. I too have concerns about having a constant Bluetooth signal on my body. It doesn't make sense to do something healthy like use a Fitbit but add questionable health risks with added signals on your body.
I wonder the same thing too all along.. What if there is just the option ie hold button for 3sec then tap 3 times to turn it On/Off (because if they make people click the button too much it would brake soon), could also use App for switching off. Battery life would probably double as a result.
Interesting opinion to hear but it sounds a little as an ad, (no offence :)) As far as I know the health data can be stored in iOS Health app if you link the two. Maybe you can also export data from fitbit directly. And regarding pulling the plug of Fitbit in a few years - in the tech world that is a long time and no one can estimate easily such a thing given what the public knows of the 2 companies. I just remind how Nokia went bust in a heartbeat.
Many companies make a lot of decisions based on advice from their lawyers. Could it be they're hesitant to allow you to disable Bluetooth because it could be seen as them admitting that Bluetooth might be a health hazard?
@Todd3322 Reposting the following, as it addresses your question. The reason that ideas like this have not been implemented is that our teams have finite development resources, and this is not presently seen as a priority task.
This suggestion was submitted in regards to restrictions around sensitive electronic areas - please keep this context in mind, as we do not believe there are any safety concerns related to Bluetooth use in Fitbit trackers.
Fitbit trackers operate at such low RF power levels that they are exempt from the evaluation used for other devices (like cell phones). This means that the FCC considers our trackers to be in a completely separate category, emitting significantly less energy than phones or other RF devices.
I know that it's easy to worry about things like RF exposure, but hopefully it helps to hear that our products operate far below FCC compliance levels, and are considered to be completely safe.
Yeah, just because the FCC says something is safe doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept it. I mean, it would be hard for someone to argue that it's BETTER to have a Bluetooth signal on you 24/7 than to have no signal.
In the end, I'll just accept what you've said as a moderator and representative for Fitbit that this feature is just not a priority for Fitbit's developers. I really have no say in what you do as a company and if you don't make a product I like, I'll just need to find a different product that meets my needs.
@Todd3322 You hit the nail on the head. So much so that your post triggered the first reaction from a moderator in a long long time! If you are concerned about RF exposure, forget your Fitbit. There are other companies (e.g Garmin, Samsung) offering quite appealing trackers which allow the user to disable Bluetooth. And there are of course a thousand smartwatches out there, all of which allow the user to disable Bluetooth. Why would anyone take the risk? Seriously? These trackers are just little toys after all.
@MatthewFitbit wrote: Fitbit trackers operate at such low RF power levels that they are exempt from the evaluation used for other devices (like cell phones). This means that the FCC considers our trackers to be in a completely separate category, emitting significantly less energy than phones or other RF devices.
@Todd3322 wrote: Yeah, just because the FCC says something is safe doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept it. I mean, it would be hard for someone to argue that it's BETTER to have a Bluetooth signal on you 24/7 than to have no signal.
@Todd3322 The FCC hasn't said anything regarding the safety of 24/7 bluetooth devices--MatthewFitbit's wording is accurate and very deliberate. Compare what he's written vs. what you heard.
...
Back when limits were being placed on RF emitting devices, the world was focused on thermal effects. Meaning--can cell phones literally heat up body tissue (same concept as a microwave oven) simply by being within close proximity. The answer was "yes they have that potential". A limit was put in place where they felt this heating (thermal effect) was low enough to not cause any harm. Different parts of the world came up with slightly different ways of approaching the mathematics involved, and how much flesh could be used to average out the peak temperature rise.
They then took this number and divided it by a safety factor to arrive at a level they felt no thermal (heating) effects could be remotely possible. They then granted an exemption class so that device manufacturer's who made products that fell well within these revised thermal safety limits would not have to apply for FCC approval. This is the exemption class that Fitbit falls within.
This is, quite honestly, a rather sane way of approaching things. Where this falls apart today is that it completely ignores non-thermal effects, which were not on the radar so to speak, at the time of the creation of the exemption. Referencing a thermal exemption class in regards to non-thermal safety shows either a unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or IMHO is an attempt to mislead.
There are many things in this world that react with our bodies in a non-linear fashion. Consuming too much cholesterol is bad for you. Conversely consuming too little cholesterol is bad for you. That's not a straight line--that's a curve.
Replicated studies have shown greater tumor promotion at lower levels than at higher levels. Both levels below thermal thresholds. Therefore "lower" does not immediately equal "safer". Is is possible that devices like Fitbit emit so little, even non-thermal effects aren't possible? Of course it's possible. Has that been established? No.
We found a new ligament in the human knee in 2014. We've learned a great deal about ourselves and about our world--but we certainly don't know it all. Not yet. It's best we all keep that in mind.
As for not being a priority for the development team--that's unfortunate. Competing products all offer the option, accessible by a variety of methods.
Which is all fine and dandy, but if you're looking to avoid something because you think it may be harmful without any conclusive studies, what you may be doing (or not doing) in order to avoid said thing may end up being worse.
People want to avoid sugar, so they turn to alternatives like saccharin and NutraSweet... People want to avoid fat, so they turn to Olestra/Olean...
Some folks believe that any sun exposure is bad, so they avoid it and develop vitamin D deficiency... So yes, actually sometimes having some level of radiation on you is better than none.
@Todd3322, I don't expect you to blindly accept what any body (even the FCC), however if you can at least reference any study that was conducted on this level of RF emission (keep in mind that a Fitbit consumes about 1/2000 of the power of a typical smartphone), then there's also no reason to assume that there's any harm caused by it. Do you have a right to be cautious? Absolutely, but you also have the right to worry about the quality of the air/water, laundry detergent, material of your clothes, proximity of your desk to the window, etc.
Thanks. My concern was just our security people not allowing us to wear them in our building. They aren't limited to Fitbit. We can't take our cell phone to our desks either, unless the phone is turned off.
I will leave this issue alone and look for something else for work hours
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