[Boltgolt]

I just want to note here: There is no evidence that there is such a thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In double blind trials people would experience the same symptoms (headaches etc.) independent of if a router in the room was turned on or not.

[Gnarl]

The issue was settled in 1991 in a series of double-blind session where participants could detect exposure with 100% accuracy (link below). What you are quoting is a widespread myth perpetuated through particularly bad science where shrinks (!) exposed different participants to the same frequency/modulation for short periods and expected them to all react in the same way. And when not all reacted equally, they wrote it off as non-significant. Electromagnetic sensitivity doesn't work like that. Reactions are highly individual. In one famously bad study (Rubin et al. 2006), participants had a GSM phone transmitter strapped to their heads and the "sham" exposure was the transmitter signal diverted to a resistor load instead of the antenna - so "sham" was ALSO emitting EMR, although probably less, but apparently detectable by participants. Again, it was written off as participants being unable to distinguish exposure from sham, when both were actual exposure! That's the level of "scientific" idiocy we're up against.

See "Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity", Rea W. et al. 1991: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1536837910903141...

[user_7832]

Counterpoint: phones have been shown to warm up brains (1), and it is hardly surprising that amongst the billions of phone users some experience pain/headache from heat (perhaps also indirectly from blood vessel dilation?). So it is hardly surprising for OP to have such an experience.

1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5952570/#:~:tex.... (Quickly googled result, I'm sure there are better results)

[agucova]

There is a big causal step between "phones slightly warm brains" and "that causes headaches".

Fortunately we don't need to rely on the fact that it would be “hardly surprising” because there is good quality empirical evidence disproving the relationship.

[user_7832]

> There is a big causal step between "phones slightly warm brains" and "that causes headaches".

> Fortunately we don't need to rely on the fact that it would be “hardly surprising” because there is good quality empirical evidence disproving the relationship.

I wish people/you would either be more open minded or at least do a quick Google search. Literally searching for "brain heating headache" got these results which suggest that there is evidence showing a possible relationship. I am not even sure if this conversation is in good faith anymore.

https://www.healthline.com/health/heat-headache https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24581675/

[FooBarBizBazz]

Seems like a useful belief anyway. Even if the RF itself doesn't do anything to his brain, the phone does cause all kinds of attention and addiction problems, so staying away from it is probably good. Say you had some kind of conditioned/psychosomatic thing where you'd throw up whenever you'd drink alcohol. Maybe it's "all in your head" and it could be cured? But it'll keep you from becoming an alcoholic, so why fight it.

[b20000]

ThERe iS nO EvidEnCe… my wife has the same problem

[2rsf]

It's not just the lack of evidence, the air around your wife is saturated with electromagnetic radiation at different wavelengths and powers, so unless you live far away from civilization or in a sheltered room or bunker than it is probably not radiation sensitivity, otherwise she would have suffered all the time.

[b20000]

when my wife uses her cellphone she can feel it in her head even when she is just holding the phone in her hands. she has no issues otherwise.

[stoplying1]

And indeed, that doesn't really mean anything to anyone and it's amusing that you assert an anecdote in response to requests for data but I guess I expect too much from people these days. Just whatever sounds good and plausible to them is enough.

[b20000]

this is not a PhD defence, sorry

[hn_version_0023]

What’s that saying? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

[agucova]

That was probably a mistake on their part, considering that he points to such evidence in the phrase that follows.