Are fitbits dangerous?

SGSM

I was just wondering this tbh. Could the constant exposure to a radiation emmiting device. Some say that they havent been around for long enough to tell if they do damage.
I'm genuinely thinking of getting rid of mine as I only use it for counting steps.

domrush

SGSM wrote: »

I was just wondering this tbh. Could the constant exposure to a radiation emmiting device. Some say that they havent been around for long enough to tell if they do damage.
I'm genuinely thinking of getting rid of mine as I only use it for counting steps.

Short answer- No. The output from a fitbit would be negligible and certainly much less than a mobile phone.

LincolnHawk

Your tinfoil hat should protect you from most of what's out there. You might grow a lizard arm from the fitbit though

Alf Veedersane

SGSM wrote: »

I was just wondering this tbh. Could the constant exposure to a radiation emmiting device. Some say that they havent been around for long enough to tell if they do damage.
I'm genuinely thinking of getting rid of mine as I only use it for counting steps.

Did you post from your mobile?

SGSM

Alf Veedersane wrote:

Did you post from your mobile?

Yes but I don't have my phone on my 95% of the time.

Alf Veedersane

SGSM wrote: »

Yes but I don't have my phone on my 95% of the time.

If you're uncomfortable wearing it, ditch it.

I don't think anyone's opinion here is going to change how you view it and it will be a while before there are any studies on it.

It wouldn't bother me but I'm not you.

brownej

The comments about tin foil hats are not helpful to the OP.
There can be a fear (whether its rational or not) around things that people do not understand. Especially when words like "radiation" are thrown in. This can set off an irrational panic if you don't understand the issue.

The only radiation emitted by fitbits is the Electromagnetic radiation associated with the communication between the device and the phone.
This is not scary! Fit bits use a communications technology called BTLE (Bluetooth low energy) or ANT. Both of these work on the 2.4GHz frequency band which is the same frequency as Wifi. BTLE is a lower energy version of the tech that wireless headphones and the like use.
Now fitbits are not communicating constantly, they only communicate at set intervals (this is to save power as communications consumes power). BTLE is low bandwidth and actually fits in the gaps in between the WiFi protocols. So if it takes 2 seconds for the fit bit to sync it is actually only transmitting for a few miliseconds.
The total exposure is tiny. Its all low energy short range.
The fitbit would be exposing you to thousands of times less radiation than your phone, as your phone is constantly transmitting whether you are using it or not. The power your phone transmits at when you are downloading or talking is enormous compared with the fitbit.
http://radiationprotectionservices.com/is-bluetooth-safe/


OP If EM radiation exposure is a general concern of yours then I would not start at your fitbit. There are far more powerful EM devices that you are exposed to every day. Mobile phone masts, mobile phones, wifi access points, your TV, your home (every room in your house is wrapped in unshielded power cables emitting EM radiation). There have been cases where cheap christmas tree lights are so bad and emitting so much interference that they will knock out broadband connections.

Heres an article from the guardian to terify you if this sort of thing worries you.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/01/christmas-fairy-lights-ruining-wi-fi

Mellor

brownej wrote: »

OP If EM radiation exposure is a general concern of yours then I would not start at your fitbit. There are far more powerful EM devices that you are exposed to every day. Mobile phone masts, mobile phones, wifi access points, your TV, your home

And of course, the single biggest source of radiation we deal with. Puts countless people in the hospital, can causes 2 or 3 million cases of cancer every year.
The sun

SGSM

Thank you brownej for your detailed response. I actually suffer pretty bad with OCD so this stuff plays on my mind which may explain a bitta paranoia. I was thinking about the fact that it is so close to your person all day (stuck to the arm). Thats the only reason I thought the may be dangerous as phones, TVs etc aren't stuck to your skin for 14 to 16 hours straight.

drunkmonkey

I use it to watch my heart after a warning from cardiologist. It's a lot better now I can see what's happening and can avoid any medication.
Am I worried about Radiation, no.

brownej

SGSM wrote: »

Thank you brownej for your detailed response. I actually suffer pretty bad with OCD so this stuff plays on my mind which may explain a bitta paranoia. I was thinking about the fact that it is so close to your person all day (stuck to the arm). Thats the only reason I thought the may be dangerous as phones, TVs etc aren't stuck to your skin for 14 to 16 hours straight.

Thats completely understandable.
The device may be close but the transmission power and duration is so small that it becomes negligible.
There is a cube relationship between transmission power and distance from you. However the power used in those other sources can be so much higher and continuously bradcasting that they are giving you a higher dose then something really close.

ford2600

SGSM wrote: »

Thank you brownej for your detailed response. I actually suffer pretty bad with OCD so this stuff plays on my mind which may explain a bitta paranoia. I was thinking about the fact that it is so close to your person all day (stuck to the arm). Thats the only reason I thought the may be dangerous as phones, TVs etc aren't stuck to your skin for 14 to 16 hours straight.

You would probably be better of fixing the OCD if possible.

All worries are imaginary, but the body's reaction to them is very real.

andy1981

I think they are dangerous. My Fitbit HR is telling me I am burning over 4000 cals a day. So I eat accordingly. Why isn't the weight falling off!

coffee_cake

I found I've to eat 1,300 cals less than it says i burned to lose 0.5kg / week

andy1981

Do people here who use a fitbit reckon they are accurate (cals burned)? I do cycle for over an hour a day commuting to work and gym 3-4 times a week. I think 400 cals is a lot to burn a day.
Sunday with no cycle or gym is still up over 3000.

Mellor

andy1981 wrote: »

I think they are dangerous. My Fitbit HR is telling me I am burning over 4000 cals a day. So I eat accordingly. Why isn't the weight falling off!

If you are eating 4000 calories (or what ever number the FB tells you to)
You wouldn't expect to lose weight.

The fitbit calculates your calories based on your size, maybe it thinks you are a lot bigger than you are

Sabre0001

While fitness trackers are really good at tracking heartrate, they're not all that accurate for calories burned, it seems: http://www.livescience.com/59242-how-accurate-is-your-fitness-tracker-really.html

Transform

SGSM wrote: »

Thank you brownej for your detailed response. I actually suffer pretty bad with OCD so this stuff plays on my mind which may explain a bitta paranoia. I was thinking about the fact that it is so close to your person all day (stuck to the arm). Thats the only reason I thought the may be dangerous as phones, TVs etc aren't stuck to your skin for 14 to 16 hours straight.

Its just adding to the things to get stressed about.

How about thinking about what you need to focus on doing rather than avoiding e.g. walking in the outdoors, talking with friends, drinking and eating too much with friends, meditating, art classes etc