BLE is not a direct competitor for WiFi. They each have zillions of applications they are good at, but there are only a relatively small number of applications where they overlap. I don't think one is globally better than the other from an applications point of view, but BLE is lower power, which means its radiation is not as harmful to humans as WiFi radiation.
There are many credible scientists and doctors who believe low-level RF is not harmful and who have carried out rigorous studies to prove it. There are also many credible scientists and doctors who believe low-level RF is harmful and who have carried out rigorous studies to prove it.
There are many scientists and doctors who have not run their own studies, (but have read reports by other researchers) who believe "the findings are inconclusive, but low-level RF doesn't appear to be very harmful".
My personal experience with it has shaped my attitude to one of tending to avoid exposure when feasible. And I continue to keep an eye out for credible studies on the subject.
I remember when I was an intern in a mobile phone operator, they expose us to many credible studies and show there is no relationship between cancer and base stations. It is true but it doesn't mean they are healthy. It is the side effect of using wireless technology and unless they are limited it is OK. I agree with you attitude should be avoiding exposure and be open minded for the new research.
Top Comments
-
dougw
-
Cancel
-
Vote Up
+2
Vote Down
-
-
Sign in to reply
-
More
-
Cancel
-
gervasi
in reply to dougw
-
Cancel
-
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
-
-
Sign in to reply
-
More
-
Cancel
Comment-
gervasi
in reply to dougw
-
Cancel
-
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
-
-
Sign in to reply
-
More
-
Cancel
Children