Viofo A129 BLUETOOTH always ON issue. Will this be addressed in the future Firmware?

Photolunatic

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
27
Reaction score
15
Country
United Kingdom
Dash Cam
Viofo A119v1 > A129D > A119v3
I was using VIOFO A119 v1 before and I liked it a lot so I upgraded to A129 Duo as I trust the company.
My biggest gripe with the new dashcam is that there is no BLUETOOTH ON/OFF option in the settings. It is in the user manual, page 21 but it is removed from the dashcam settings.

IMG_20190123_114022rr.jpg IMG_20190123_114149.jpg

I asked a question about it on the UK Amazon listing and received a reply:
Bluetooth remote control is always on, but it has very low power consumption.
And the Bluetooth setting in the camera is also always on.

Is it true that the BT is constantly ON and that menu setting was removed after releasing a manual? Why?

Some may not be aware that Bluetooth and WI-FI radiation (or any EMF) is not safe and more and more people are hypersensitive to wifi, Bluetooth and other (microwave) radiation and actually badly reacting to it.

I can't see the point to have a BLUETOOTH blasting all the time, and even if the current draw is small when you are not using BT, that energy is wasted.
The biggest concern is still a health risk of constant (unnecessary) exposure.

I would like to have the option to switch BT ON/OFF (same as WI-FI) in the options menu and I think it won't be a difficult task as it appears that it was in the settings before.

I only hope that VIOFO gets interested and implement this (back) in the future Firmware.


Thanks.
 
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, then the A129 current version performs a quick look for the remote at startup and if the remote is not found then it stops transmitting Bluetooth, even if the remote is found, the remote will only communicate when it is pressed, for the rest of the time there will be no transmissions.

In any case, it is the low power version of Bluetooth which can run for many years on the tiny battery inside the remote control, it does not have enough energy to cause damage to humans.

As for the wifi, that doesn't do a lot of transmitting either unless you are watching a video, and if you really consider wifi to be a serious problem then you should not be on the roads because quite a lot of cars now have wifi as standard equipment and you will be irradiated as they pass your car! Also don't use the trains since they now have wifi hotspots on them, and don't walk either since you will have to pass houses, and most of them now have wifi systems!

As for the health issues, the World Health Organisation has studied these things and concluded:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) has researched electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their alleged effects on public health, concluding that such exposures within recommended limits do not produce any known adverse health effect." : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

The issue should be taken seriously, and I do know of someone who died 3 days after encountering EMF coming through a wall which he knew nothing about, definitely caused by the EMF, but that was also definitely above recommended limits!
 
If I remember correctly, then the A129 current version performs a quick look for the remote at startup and if the remote is not found then it stops transmitting Bluetooth, even if the remote is found, the remote will only communicate when it is pressed, for the rest of the time there will be no transmissions.
Thanks. This will provide some sort of solution if confirmed.
As for the health issues, the World Health Organisation has studied these things and concluded:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) has researched electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their alleged effects on public health, concluding that such exposures within recommended limits do not produce any known adverse health effect." : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

The issue should be taken seriously, and I do know of someone who died 3 days after encountering EMF coming through a wall which he knew nothing about, definitely caused by the EMF, but that was also definitely above recommended limits!
If you trust WHO...
There were enough studies but surprisingly they can't get through to the mainstream.
https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/

There are some UK based websites too:
http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/
https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/

more:
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/action-now/find-smart-meter-websites-in-your-area/

I think the health risks are at least worth researching, especially now when 5G has been deployed
 
Last edited:
I've yet to see a study which truly emulates real-world EMF conditions; most of what has been done has had one carefully monitored transmitter while in the real world you get hammered by many on different frequencies, and not all of those are well regulated and well-filtered ones. It won't be anything short of a herculean task to find the definitive answer, but we had darn well better be doing thr research as best we can, for if there is a problem which only shows up years later there won't be enough functional people left to do that research :eek:

Phil
 
I've yet to see a study which truly emulates real-world EMF conditions; most of what has been done has had one carefully monitored transmitter while in the real world you get hammered by many on different frequencies, and not all of those are well regulated and well-filtered ones. It won't be anything short of a herculean task to find the definitive answer, but we had darn well better be doing thr research as best we can, for if there is a problem which only shows up years later there won't be enough functional people left to do that research :eek:

Phil

personally I think we're at much greater risk from the junk we eat than we are from EMF
 
We've got a lot of potential killers lurking in the shadows for us, many of which haven't been tested as well as they should be. If people (especially in the US) were truly aware of what goes on with the packaged food we buy at the grocery store, there would be an instant revolt. I have some digestive conditions which has made me into an ingredient-label-reader by necessity, and I can say with no reservation that we're poisoning ourselves over here. And the types of food we eat ain't helping either :eek:

Phil
 
Off topic, but what are some everyday foods we should avoid? I know soda, most snack foods such as chips, foods containing hydroginated fat, BPA in plastics but what else?

The BPA thing is nuts. For the last few years I tell the local grocery store manager not to leave bottled water out on display outside in the sun as the BPA seems into the water. If falls on deaf ears. They simply don't give a F.
 
Off topic, but what are some everyday foods we should avoid? I know soda, most snack foods such as chips, foods containing hydroginated fat, BPA in plastics but what else?
.

to generalise, the more processed it is, the worse it is for you, or as I heard one doctor explain, if it tastes good spit it out, it's probably not good for you
 
I've yet to see a study which truly emulates real-world EMF conditions; most of what has been done has had one carefully monitored transmitter while in the real world you get hammered by many on different frequencies, and not all of those are well regulated and well-filtered ones. It won't be anything short of a herculean task to find the definitive answer, but we had darn well better be doing thr research as best we can, for if there is a problem which only shows up years later there won't be enough functional people left to do that research :eek:

Phil
I think if there was a serious problem with radio waves then it would have been found long ago, there is no one alive today who has not been exposed to a random mix of unnatural radio waves for their entire lives. Some problems are known about through experience, to get near a powerful transmitter you always need to go past warning signs and through a locked door/gate, eg near the communications mast on a ship or near a cell tower.

The ones that do worry me are the new ones, like these autonomous vehicle lidars that are sending out pulses of up to 15KW because they have found a loophole in the regulations which only limit the average power transmission and where the technology they are using was developed for military use where the effects of long term exposure where not considered a big issue. There are no warning signs on them and nothing to stop a child peering into the transmitter window from zero distance while it is active to see what is in there.
 
Off topic, but what are some everyday foods we should avoid? I know soda, most snack foods such as chips, foods containing hydroginated fat, BPA in plastics but what else?

The BPA thing is nuts. For the last few years I tell the local grocery store manager not to leave bottled water out on display outside in the sun as the BPA seems into the water. If falls on deaf ears. They simply don't give a F.
Everything is dangerous if you eat/drink too much, pure water is very dangerous and can kill very rapidly. BPA in plastics has a risk, but a low one, the risk of using a car is much higher.

Unless you have a medical condition which requires a specific diet, just avoid a lot of processed/pre-cooked meat, anything with a lot of salt or sugar and eat plenty of fruit and vegetables. A small amount of anything legal is fine. Much more important is to control your weight, which for most people should be easy if your diet is a healthy one and you get a reasonable amount of daily physical exercise.
 
I had an electrical contractor tell me not to place a circuit breaker box too close to a BR. He gave me this story of a customer who slept near a supply room with a nearby box and that client died of brain cancer. Not sure about the validity of the story but as a layperson its beleiveable.
 
I also beleive Jimmy Carter when he said he saw a UFO.
 
I think if there was a serious problem with radio waves then it would have been found long ago, there is no one alive today who has not been exposed to a random mix of unnatural radio waves for their entire lives.

Therein lies the real problem. When things are clinically or scientifically tested for safety, the norm is to isolate the one item or thing being looked at so that nothing else can inadvertently skew the results. Which makes sense for initial tests, but what is almost never checked is how it goes in a real-world environment where lots of other things are thrown willy-nilly into the mix, and that can't be quickly or easily tested- or with scientific accuracy for that matter. Sometimes all we have to go on is empirical evicence that will not be deemed acceptable by science, but can still show clear patterns anyway. For instance there is a clear rise in occurrence of various cancers which coincides with the timeline of increased UHF radio transmissions. Nobody can prove it is or is not connected, but the trend is still there. And there is a higher rate of cancer in those who spend a lot of time near radio transmitters; this has been proven clinically, although statistically the increased risk is only a few percent overall. Those same studies also show that the higher the frequency is at equal power levels, the higher that percentage is. And overall in the last 75 years or so there has been a larger rise in cancer rates compared to past times. Again, the trend is very clear, but nobody can state exactly what the cause is. If we go back to early cell-phones, there wa a clear link to usage and increased rates of brain cancer. They often used 3W of transmitting power at ~600 to ~900MHz to reach the few cell towers we had back then. This brought about a change to more towers with lower transmitting power in the phones as the best way to solve the problem, but now usage has greatly increased in duration and occurance, and frequencies rose too, and we're not getting testing that accommodates those changes; instead everyone points to the earlier studies and says "See? It's safe. This proves it!" Yet when you put it all together there is definitely a problem which definitely correlates to cellphone usage very closely, and so far nobody has found anything else with such a close correlation. And when you look in those places without much cellphone use, you see lower rates of brain cancer there which also strangely correlate closely to what following the trends would lead you to expect.

I'm not a tin-hatter by any stretch of the imagination, but I can see trends and in those there's enough of a clear link for me to raise an eyebrow at it and wonder... Though it really doesn't matter because even if you were to prove conclusively that cellphone usage increases the risk of brain cancer even say 10%, almost nobody would alter their phone usage. The industry would certainly not want incur the massive expenses to change how things are done to safer lower frequencies even if they were available which they aren't. So there's really little point in anyone going here exploring for answers because nobody is going to act on any answers found anyway.

Phil
 
Is there anyway to turn B tooth off at the cam end once paired?
 
Is there anyway to turn B tooth off at the cam end once paired?
I don't think there is any point since the remote is low power Bluetooth and it doesn't transmit anything anyway, unless someone presses the remote button. A big difference to wifi which transmits continuously even if there is nothing to send.
 
Yes but a passer buy say in a parking lot scanning for BT will detect the dash cam.
 
Yes but a passer buy say in a parking lot scanning for BT will detect the dash cam.
Not sure that is correct?
But if it is, why would it matter?
 
I can't believe that there is no one interested in having an option to switch BT off as manual states.

I am.
Thanks.
 
Back
Top