Sonos One emits RF even in wired mode


Badge

Hi there,
I'm trying to disable all the wireless of the Sonos One SL speaker. I've connected it via Ethernet and enabled Wired mode. However, it still emits R.F., approximately 20 mW/m2. I suppose it's a Bluetooth module. When it's in Wi-Fi mode, it emits approx. 800-1000 mW/m2, which is enormous, especially when placing this speaker in the bedroom.
My suggestion for the product team is completely disabling Wi-Fi and Bluetooth modules when the device enters Wired mode.

P.S. I can upload a video with my measurement using a Cornet RF meter.


22 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +17

Have you disabled Wi-Fi under the One SL’s settings in the Sonos app?

Badge

Have you disabled Wi-Fi under the One SL’s settings in the Sonos app?

Sure

 

At what distance are you measuring flux density? 

Badge

At what distance are you measuring flux density? 

Just a few centimetres above the speaker.

Badge

I have uploaded a video showing that 

 

At what distance are you measuring flux density? 

Just a few centimetres above the speaker."

"A few centimetres" is vague. Are you familiar with the inverse square law?

Badge

At what distance are you measuring flux density? 

Just a few centimetres above the speaker."

"A few centimetres" is vague. Are you familiar with the inverse square law?

You are right, and I understand this. The question is why the speaker emits any RF while it's plugged in ethernet and with wireless disabled?

It should work like an airplane mode.

However, even within a meter my device detects RF from the speaker as well, not so much, but it is.

 

It’s Bluetooth Low Energy, primarily used for setup purposes. Quite why it remains active is not clear but the emissions are tiny. The clue is in the name.

Why are you bothered anyway? I assume you must go outside occasionally, maybe even take the odd flight. Unless of course you spend your life in a Faraday cage? 

Badge

It’s Bluetooth Low Energy, primarily used for setup purposes. Quite why it remains active is not clear but the emissions are tiny. The clue is in the name.

Why are you bothered anyway? I assume you must go outside occasionally, maybe even take the odd flight. Unless of course you spend your life in a Faraday cage? 

I'm not wearing a foil hat, as you may imagine :)

I love tech devices, but I think we should reduce RF exposure when possible. For example, in a single room, there a lot of wireless devices: laptops, tablets, phones, smartwatches, headphones, IoT sockets, lamps, sensors, printers, speakers, air purifiers. So you could be surrounded by dozens of RF emitting devices. I'm trying to reduce these when possible by disabling wireless…
Do you think this exposure is natural and good for a human? There are some studies proving the harmful effects of constant RF exposure.

 

Do you think this exposure is natural and good for a human? There are some studies proving the harmful effects of constant RF exposure.

References please? 

Badge

Do you think this exposure is natural and good for a human? There are some studies proving the harmful effects of constant RF exposure.

References please? 

 

https://swissharmony.com/fertility-reduced-mobile-phones/

However, you are right – there are not many confirmed cases. However, all health organizations couldn't confirm that RF radiation is absolutely safe and says that further research is needed. It's possible that we'll have some serious studies that could confirm the harm effect in the future.
The only thing we can be 100% sure of is that RF exposure is not natural to the human body.

Badge

Not a big fan of BS. And you got me on a bad day.

  1. SwissHarmony: On the websites “shop”, They sell “Swiss Harmony’s Water MiniTuner. the advert says “Water eliminates harmful information from your water” for $310. If that doesnt grab you, you can have a BioPatch “is used for suppression of electro-smog, earth radiation and water veins” $150. I sh*t ye not.
  2. The phrase “All health organisations couldn’t confirm that RF is absolutely safe…..” Shall we break that down… “All Health organisations” There are over 100 large health organisations in the UK alone; In the world thousands. “Couldn’t confirm” I would assume they were not asked. If you are going to make an argument on something, at least, do your homework.
  3. I give up. Listening to BS iritates me!

 

 
Badge

Not a big fan of BS. And you got me on a bad day.

  1. SwissHarmony: On the websites “shop”, They sell “Swiss Harmony’s Water MiniTuner. the advert says “Water eliminates harmful information from your water” for $310. If that doesnt grab you, you can have a BioPatch “is used for suppression of electro-smog, earth radiation and water veins” $150. I sh*t ye not.
  2. The phrase “All health organisations couldn’t confirm that RF is absolutely safe…..” Shall we break that down… “All Health organisations” There are over 100 large health organisations in the UK alone; In the world thousands. “Couldn’t confirm” I would assume they were not asked. If you are going to make an argument on something, at least, do your homework.
  3. I give up. Listening to BS iritates me!
  1. I don’t know what SwissHarmony sells. Let’s forget about them and dig into the original study: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1060927842647/irradiated.pdf
  1. I meant WHO for first, of course: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-071852/en/
  2. Don’t worry, be happy :)

Do you carry your Sonos One in your pants pocket?

Badge

Do you carry your Sonos One in your pants pocket?

No. But we are talking about the general harmful effects of RF radiation. Right?

Badge

I've just measured Sonos One in the Wireless mode, and it emits 20-30 mW/m2 at half a meter distance. So if you place a speaker at your work desk, you'll get an additional constant RF exposure.

 

However, if you decide to put a speaker in the pocket, you’ll get full power of 1000 mW/m2 😁

Badge

I have calmed down a little now. but my head is beginning to bruise from banging it againg the wall, over and over.

Are you randomly googling? The report you cited concludes:

“In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach16 because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory. Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. Moreover, very little information on effects in children and adolescents is available and the question of potential risk for these age groups remains unresolved. “

In effect, the tests were all short term, there was no indication of short term damage, and says that this does not prove that it doesn’t cause long term damage. By inference, this does not prove anything. It was published by WHO (not written by WHO) along with thousands of others reports for peer review. In the Disclaimer: “The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication “

You realy must try harder! I will not be correctling your homework again!

 

Badge

I have calmed down a little now. but my head is beginning to bruise from banging it againg the wall, over and over.

Are you randomly googling? The report you cited concludes:

“In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach16 because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory. Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. Moreover, very little information on effects in children and adolescents is available and the question of potential risk for these age groups remains unresolved. “

In effect, the tests were all short term, there was no indication of short term damage, and says that this does not prove that it doesn’t cause long term damage. By inference, this does not prove anything. It was published by WHO (not written by WHO) along with thousands of others reports for peer review. In the Disclaimer: “The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication “

You realy must try harder! I will not be correctling your homework again!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radio-waves-reducing-exposure/radio-waves-reducing-exposure-from-mobile-phones

The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.

Which proves what I said above:

health organizations couldn't confirm that RF radiation is absolutely safe and says that further research is needed

Badge

I agree with all you guys that very few studies prove the harmful effect of RF exposure at the allowed limit.
But there are actually some, which I sent above and I think we'll see more in the future. The key question is that WHO says that there are no proven harmful effects on particular diseases when RF exposure is within the allowed limits.

Badge

acquittal

I have calmed down a little now. but my head is beginning to bruise from banging it againg the wall, over and over.

Are you randomly googling? The report you cited concludes:

“In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach16 because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory. Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. Moreover, very little information on effects in children and adolescents is available and the question of potential risk for these age groups remains unresolved. “

In effect, the tests were all short term, there was no indication of short term damage, and says that this does not prove that it doesn’t cause long term damage. By inference, this does not prove anything. It was published by WHO (not written by WHO) along with thousands of others reports for peer review. In the Disclaimer: “The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication “

You realy must try harder! I will not be correctling your homework again!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radio-waves-reducing-exposure/radio-waves-reducing-exposure-from-mobile-phones

The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.

Which proves what I said above:

health organizations couldn't confirm that RF radiation is absolutely safe and says that further research is needed

 

The argument doesnt annoy me. It may or may not be correct. There is a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence usually results in acquittal.

You are randomly bouncing from one paper to another. This would indicate a lack of veracity in the argument. The paper published by WHO is about 11 years old. The guidelines produced by PHE are again precautionary. The PHE statement does not prove anything, it merely advises on taking sensible measures.

What annoys me is, as per your original link, there is an industry out there trying to monopolize on peoples fears. Additionally there are political movements moving in on the action; cue idiots attacking 5G towers blaming them for Covid. You posted the link to the snake oil purveyors.

If you feel strongly about something, which you appear to, then please post legitimate links.

If you are going to make over-arching statements (i.e. what you actually said was "All Health Organisations...") expect someone to correct you.

Use Hands Free! Correction: Go Analog Hands Free.

Badge

acquittal

I have calmed down a little now. but my head is beginning to bruise from banging it againg the wall, over and over.

Are you randomly googling? The report you cited concludes:

“In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach16 because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory. Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. Moreover, very little information on effects in children and adolescents is available and the question of potential risk for these age groups remains unresolved. “

In effect, the tests were all short term, there was no indication of short term damage, and says that this does not prove that it doesn’t cause long term damage. By inference, this does not prove anything. It was published by WHO (not written by WHO) along with thousands of others reports for peer review. In the Disclaimer: “The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication “

You realy must try harder! I will not be correctling your homework again!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radio-waves-reducing-exposure/radio-waves-reducing-exposure-from-mobile-phones

The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.

Which proves what I said above:

health organizations couldn't confirm that RF radiation is absolutely safe and says that further research is needed

 

The argument doesnt annoy me. It may or may not be correct. There is a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence usually results in acquittal.

You are randomly bouncing from one paper to another. This would indicate a lack of veracity in the argument. The paper published by WHO is about 11 years old. The guidelines produced by PHE are again precautionary. The PHE statement does not prove anything, it merely advises on taking sensible measures.

What annoys me is, as per your original link, there is an industry out there trying to monopolize on peoples fears. Additionally there are political movements moving in on the action; cue idiots attacking 5G towers blaming them for Covid. You posted the link to the snake oil purveyors.

If you feel strongly about something, which you appear to, then please post legitimate links.

If you are going to make over-arching statements (i.e. what you actually said was "All Health Organisations...") expect someone to correct you.

Use Hands Free! Correction: Go Analog Hands Free.

 

I didn’t bookmark studies and articles, which I read a long time ago, sorry for that.

But I’ve sent one and I think it’s worth reading: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1060927842647/irradiated.pdf

Badge

Oh, I finally found my bookmark! Sorry guys, for sending you random links before.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5583901/

Reply