[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...