The issue regarding BT safety seems to crop up year after year in sensationalistic, self serving (to the organizations that generate the information) press releases but seldom with enough facts to further bolster the claim. I have linked to relatively recent articles on both sides of the issue. They are both written primarily touting facts rather than emotionally sensationalistic claims and are good reads.
Point:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/are-wireless-headphones-dangerous#The-bottom-line
Counterpoint:
https://www.soundguys.com/is-bluetooth-dangerous-18735/
As an engineer I line up with the counterpoint camp.
It seems logical to avoid unnecessary risks, but
risk is comprised of both
consequence and
liklihood.
The
consequence of
brain cancer is
high, the
liklihood of it occuring due to exposure to head worn bluetooth devices is
very low simply based on the very low exposure levels involved rendering the overall
risk as
low. Note in the first linked article (the one that leans towards bluetooth headphones being potentially harmful or at least of unknown liklihood harm) the FCC maximum acceptable Specific Absortion Rate (i.e., mass energy density per second) is 1.6 watts/kg while apple earpods max out at .466 W/kg. The second article does a credible job of explaining the huge diffrence in RF radiation absorption rates used in relatively inconclusive studies of health effects on lab animals vs. the real world exposure rates of casual bluetooth device usage and we are talking 3 to 4 orders of magnitude difference in exposure rates (i.e., factors of up to 10,000 times difference).
I agree with minimizing risks to the extent practical, especially if absolute risks are unknown, but when placed in the context of all the other risks you are exposed to during detecting including the RF radiation from the detector itself (especially from the control head and coil), all the other environmental RF radiation out there from cell towers, to broadcast stations, to power lines, and wi-fi transmitters, not to mention the ionizing radiation from sun exposure that we know definitively causes skin cancer, to the risk of driving your car to the hunt site, it is like worrying about being irritated by few grains in a shoeful of harmful sand.
Nevertheless, I don't begrudge anyone taking the "better safe than sorry" route, especially since the WM08 provides a suitable though only marginally safer alternative (since IMO the overall risk is infinitesimal to begin with).
Anyway, I encourage folks to read the articles and make up their own minds.