I would love to watch this person glaze over while I explain that they both run at 2.4 ghz and are thus identical as far as radiation goes. The EM spectrum isn’t that complicated a concept, I don’t know why it’s such black magic to so many
It's not second semester physics, though. It's like middle school nature & science class. It's part of understanding the base foundations of our modern world.
Not to mention, we've known about and actively used electromagnetic waves since the invention of radio (if we ignore light bulbs and visible light, of course)
As its name conveniently suggests, Bluetooth is much more painful. Scientists wrestled with the technology during its inception, sacrificing life and limb. As long as they follower manufacturer recommendations and don't risk conditions that can lead to RF burns, a.k.a. the dreaded Blue-bite, they should be just fine using Bluetooth.
Bluetooth is, not a joke, named after King Harald Bluetooth. He was a viking, who united many Norse tribes, you know with all the pillaging they are known for.
The name "Bluetooth" was proposed in 1997 by Jim Kardach of Intel, one of the founders of the Bluetooth SIG. The name was inspired by a conversation with Sven Mattisson who related Scandinavian history through tales from Frans G. Bengtsson's The Long Ships, a historical novel about Vikings and the 10th-century Danish king Harald Bluetooth. Upon discovering a picture of the runestone of Harald Bluetooth in the book A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones, Kardach proposed Bluetooth as the codename for the short-range wireless program which is now called Bluetooth.
After the final fight was over and the dust had settled, a faint robotic female voice could be heard on a full moon at midnight if you repeat “this technology is way too widely used for how little bandwidth it can reliably carry it’s just not good for data transfer or high quality audio/video” three times….