The subject of EHS has been misunderstood over the years due to the limitations of investigative techniques and measurement techniques in the past. The emergence of Quantum Biology (University of Surrey in the UK and elsewhere) is confirming the sensitivity of people in different measure. The manifestation of symptoms varies especially for neurological conditions. Myelin sheath which is underdeveloped (in children it is almost non existence until reaching 20+ years old is a synapse protection plays a big part symptoms.
As a simplistic comparison, people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sunlight, X-Rays, fluorescent light and blue light from LED and screens. The blue light receptor melanopsin is in the eye and recently discovered in skin and subcutaneous fat, adding to the science that we didn’t know only 20 years and less ago.    The apparent lack of sensitivity in some people masks the problems caused when our body physiology, controlled by electrochemical processes at a mitochondrial level. This is the domain of quantum biology the emergence of which is not taught in medical school. In fact, chemistry, biology and physics are closely intertwined but not addressed. Evidence is emerging from the Large Hadron collider in Switzerland which confirms how physics is closely related to biology and has tremendous effects on our cellular body signalling.  Dr Doug Wallace the father of mitochondrial research , responsible for the term ‘Mitochondrial Eve’, the tracking of human development through our maternal DNA refers to the epigenetic influences of mitcohondial DNA on our genomic DNA. We are adding to the soup of epigenetic adverse health influences. Bio chemical cellular activity is adversely influenced by our use of tec.
Wikipedia is not a good resource on this occasion as it is outdated very quickly in the new fields of research.

Nice, very nice indeed. Please continue to enlighten us all. Always very helpful to see what self declared experts have to contribute.

I’m glad you approve. I wouldn’t call other people contributing as ‘self declared experts’, it’s a matter of their field of study or interest which limits their understanding. My research speciality is  in the field of mitochondria, epigenetics and quantum tunnelling. Researching in particular calcium efflux attributable to nnEMF such as blue tooth, wifi and cellular phones.  Prof Jim Al-Khalili in this video describes it well 'This isn't speculation by the way' at about 9 minutes into this presentation. Modelling of quantum coherence of photons of light in the process of photosynthesis is being used in quantum computing which is reflected in the develoopment of AI (not my area but we are involved in crossover research with this )
 

Just keep it coming, @George_George!

I think you have enough content in the Prof Jim Al-Khalili video to get on with.
I like his statement “you can’t argue with Einstein and E = mc2”
It sorts the wheat from the chaff in the tin foil hatters who deny any issues with EHS health issues.
Enjoy

Good grief.  

My biggest question here is why would someone worried about Bluetooth and WiFi buy a system that uses them?

With respect to emissions from SONOS units when WiFi is turned OFF, we don’t know exactly what this means. It might mean that power is removed from the WiFi radios or it might mean that logically WiFi data is being ignored and the transmitter simply sits at a fixed frequency or turns into some sort of beacon. 

When RF power meter readings are quoted, I’m not sure exactly what they are measuring. If the meter is simply measuring energy in the 2.4 and 5GHz bands, this energy might not be associated with WiFi and Bluetooth transmissions, the energy could simply be leakage from the microprocessors and such on board. I’d like to see a measurement before and after WiFi is turned OFF.

From experience I have a cell phone and laptop which has a capability of wifi and bluetooth. Both these devices can be turned on or off (activated or deactivated). The same goes for routers with respect for wifi although on Virgin’s router it isn’t an easy process for non tech people to use this feature. 
Considering the Sonos unit gives excellent sound quality it would be reasonable to expect that using the auxiliary input, there would be an option to disable wifi and bluetooth. 
In the absence of a built in method, it’s a reasonable request to see if the unit can be hacked to remove those functions, with also meter testing to show it has been achieved. 

I’ve just confirmed bluetooth stays on. A knowledgeable support person from Sonos told me just a few days ago that bluetooth is only on during setup. He was mistaken.

So it’s unfortunately unusable because it’s right next to a family member’s head when in use. If I were to do the hack I saw in this thread, I would choose a cheaper version, not the one with the microphone. I was hopeful. Bluetooth is in close to everything, so it’s important to have something that doesn’t have it. So the disappointment is extra bitter.

The speaker is going back!

Which Sonos speaker do you have? How were you able to confirm that Bluetooth stays on? 

Sonos One g2. I used LightBlue app on iPad with bluetooth turned on. I plugged the speaker in and out to confirm the signal I saw was from the speaker. It’s very dishonest of the company that not even their support knows about this! And I believe he genuinely didn’t know. The topic interested him intellectually.

If I am to disable the buttons etc, I would switch to the cheaper version. I have a return window and being conned by the company and then proving them wrong, and then finding this thread, is reason good enough to return it. Or an older speaker where bluetooth is not a possibility, if I decide to trust Sonos partially again.

Hi,
I'm not a fan of tinfoil hats, but I was also interested - for other reasons - in acquiring a network speaker without BT.

Interestingly, the possibility of turning off BT is justified by the manufacturers of some speakers. I found this by searching the manuals of various devices. For example, Denon in one of its (more expensive) devices allows you to turn off both Wi-Fi and BT, justifying it in the instructions:

“Stopping Bluetooth receiver and transmitter functions reduces a source of noise that affects sound quality, enabling higher sound quality playback.”

In my case, there was another argument - I didn't want other residents of the student house (whom I don't know) to scan my equipment (intentionally or not), not to try to connect, get to know what equipment I use, etc.

In addition, we have more and more devices emitting radiation in the same ranges, which, as the example of Wi-Fi 2.4 shows, over time leads to interference at such a level that it makes work difficult.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any speakers on the market that have only Ethernet), except those intended for installation in cafes, airports, halls (definitely not for audiophiles ). So I'm stuck with speakers like these.

And now, assuming that:
- we are free people, also free to choose equipment ;-)
- the economy is based on free market principles
it would be better for Sonos to add the option to disable BT before another manufacturer does it and takes away part of the market :-)

There is one more aspect, when searching the specifications of various speakers or the connections modules (e.g. Denon, WiiM), I noticed that even if there is an option to turn off BT, it does not apply to the BT module responsible for detecting/initiating the speakers. This module (often BLE) works non-stop, fully reporting not only to household members, but also to neighbors/tenants about our equipment. It cannot be turned off. Sometimes it is strange, because, for example, the second-generation Sonos One speaker lacks BT in its specification, but in fact it has a BT BLE module for communication with the phone...
One more example, Denon in its "Home 150" speaker automatically turns off BT if it is inactive for 20 minutes, but it is not known whether there is an additional BLE module running non-stop and whether we still have emissions after turning it on for these 20 minutes (unfortunately on Denon there is not any forum like this one, there is no one to ask, questions to their support are answered by their AI...).

In my humble opinion, all this is due to laziness - both producers and users, the former want to limit their support before the flood of questions "why can't I see my speaker", the latter want everything to work without the need to consult the manual.

So we can only appeal to the manufacturer (if they read this forum?) for more flexible solutions. As the old saying goes - a satisfied customer will always return to the seller, a dissatisfied customer will never return.

Greetings to all!

The number of supposedly dissatisfied customers who keep returning, and even keep purchasing new Sonos devices, would surprise you.  If I had a dollar for every person who claimed to toss their Sonos in the trash or sell it on e-Bay who returns months later to post a complaint about some other problem or ask about a new feature, I could buy a new Sonos immersive set.  That bunny gets threatened all the time, but he never seems to die.

OK, show me those statistics :-)
I'm joking of course. Research shows that many consumers rationalize their expectations after purchasing, in other words, people justify to themselves that what was previously a lack for them is not really the case. It costs them less commitment than processing returns, than admitting a mistake in the purchase. Our brain takes care of us so that we don't go crazy :-)
Rather, the idea is that an additional product feature can attract new audiences (before someone else attracts them).
However... I'm a realist and I think that, diplomatically speaking, Sonos will treat arguments like mine as moderately important :-)

As a veteran here for 15 years, I see most of those posters as never satisfied, only happy when they are bitching about something, or issuing idle threats to get a company to give them attention and the ego boost that goes with it.   None of whom deserves to be catered to, and Sonos has demonstrated in the past they are quite aware of this fact.

And frankly, although I have no numbers to back it up, I suspect the market for non-Bluetooth speakers is significantly smaller than it is for those who have it. Either BLE, for ease of setup, or full blown Bluetooth for carrying a music signal. If it were the other way, I suspect Sonos would have jumped on it as a money generating differentiation. So far, they haven’t, which supports my expectation.

Which isn’t to say that there isn’t such a market for that, just that it’s small enough not to appeal to the Product Managers at Sonos. I could easily see another manufacturer of smaller size grabbing that market, but I would expect due to smaller number of potential sales, the cost to the consumer would be much higher for an equivalent quality speaker. 

Business speculations certainly make some sense, but I am wondering about the logic of this whole situation.

Namely, it is impossible for a speaker to use two (or even three) media at the same time.

Therefore, it is logical to turn off those media that we do not use, at least to save energy (I deliberately do not want to write that for ecology, because the topic is as controversial as the impact of radiation on living cells ). Not to mention the reduction of the endlessly growing interference in the airwaves, or the issue of making public what equipment each neighbor has.
Only logic and consistency. Or the lack thereof.

They allow us to turn off Wi-Fi, but not BT - what could be the reason for such manufacturers' logic?

Earlier I described the issue of laziness on both sides, but I still have the issue of some threshold that cannot be overcome. Maybe BT BLE chips are designed from the beginning in such a way that they cannot be turned on/off programmatically because someone assumed that? (no... probably no...).

P.S.

I am wrong, BLE can be switched off, I have a smart watch, a Garmin, which has a BLE, used for all functions of communication between smart watch and smartphone. That is the only transmission medium of that watch. No other one. And you know what? I can switch off that BLE in smartwatch, really. This is the kind od logic I love :-)

I think that a large segment of BT users assume that BT simply replaces the wire. In that context BT must be constantly available.

Maybe, but it doesn't mean it could not be switched off, see my smartwatch example above.

Technology always adapts to changes with some delay. Antivirus programs appeared some time after viruses appeared. Similarly, WiFi high encryption and the ability to disable the publication of your network WiFi name. I don't rule out that it was postulated on the forums ;-)
What will come after BLE? I can imagine - this is an extreme case - potential thieves walking down the street, scanning for BLE signals, publishing how expensive equipment is in which house The ability to choose - whether I turn BLE on or off makes sense :-)

I understand your concern with respect to potential biological consequences of emissions. There are considerations for manufactures and consumers.

On the manufacturing side it is much more expensive to add a mechanical switch than to provide another option on a menu. Also, over the long term, the mechanical switch is a failure point. Yes, there are very reliable switches -- at a higher cost. A network jack (and the cable) are also costs and small reliability risks.

On the consumer side “everything is wireless now, right?”. There would be backlash if a wired connection was required in order to re-enable the radio. Less and less consumers are aware that their Gateway has network jacks because the ISP’s installer simply makes sure that the user’s phone can access the service, then leaves the premises. This confusion would result in more support calls -- increasing costs for manufacturers. There will also be rants in communities, such as this, complaining that their BT has now stopped working. suggesting that a class action lawsuit is needed.

I would welcome a switch. My personal experience with BT has not been great and I don’t have much use for it, but I do have a noise cancelling headset that I’ll occasionally use to protect my hearing from excessive noise in my environment. Of course this places the BT radio very near my brain. I must choose between potential brain damage and well documented hearing damage. I’m constantly struggling with BT connectivity issues of my various devices. Maybe there is a wired noise cancelling headset somewhere.

The latest SONOS models do include a mechanical switch associated with BT. I don’t know if this completely removes power from the BT radio or simply disables it’s function. The switch is a simple pushbutton and I suspect that a reboot or Factory Reset will enable BT again. I haven’t bothered to test this.

I don’t think that we have a complete understanding of potential long term outcomes on evolution caused by radio emissions or if the public will care. There is a large amount of data documenting bad outcomes for consuming certain foods, yet production continues and the public continues to gobble them.

I was too late to get One gen 1. I’m either stuck with gen 2, or need to go back to the drawing board. Does anyone know if Ray is the same as One? Or can BT be turned off?

BTW, I’m going to replace the battery in my old Bose buds to avoid BT headsets. It’s not user replaceable, but still possible to do.

Consider the used market, sadly it is far smaller than expected given the number of folks that have posted that they are selling all their Sonos.

I’m a big fan of having options, sadly it seems the ones I want aren’t popular enough to see Sonos implementing them.

From an RF exposure standpoint turning off the WiFi and Bluetooth on an active cell phone is going after the lesser of three evils.

Turning off WiFi to a non-Ethernet connected Sonos would remove the ability to control it.

Several good points for other reasons to turn off Bluetooth.