What if there was a double blind test to determine if antis could detect and suffer from SHS and no SHS in the air or in clothing?

I believe the results would be the same as below for ES.
Gary K.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-mexico-...adiated-by-wifi.html

New Mexico is being irradiated by WiFi?
Once again, the City Different has made news by becoming a source of amusement for the rest of the country. Sadly, this news illustrates the power of our fears when they aren’t balanced by science. As was first reported by KOB-TV, a group of people in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is trying to get the capital city to ban WiFi from public buildings.

They claim they are allergic to electromagnetic fields and suffer an array of physical problems when exposed to wireless technology — symptoms that range from headaches to chest pain, “depending on where their weak spots are.” They say that WiFi in public places discriminates against those with their sensitivity and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Those who believe they have electromagnetic sensitivities (ES) and other environmental illnesses experience very real symptoms which tragically illustrate how fears can hurt people. Their fears are driven by a string of misunderstandings of what is happening to them.

But anyone can be taken in by fears that their food, water or air might be contaminated or cause them harm and experience very real symptoms that can even become debilitating.

What’s at work is a very well recognized phenomenon known as the nocebo effect. It’s the flip side of the placebo effect and works much the same way.

We can become convinced that exposure to even a minuscule amount of a chemical or contaminant can harm our health, just as a minuscule amount of a healing substance can heal - when neither can.

The resulting symptoms can be extraordinary and far beyond anything we might ever imagine the power of suggestion could do to us.

And when fears of a chemical, threat or exposure are shared among a group of people, the symptoms can spread.

Last year, researchers at the University of Essex in the UK, conducted a double blind study and measured subjective measures of well-being as well as physiological measures of heart rate, blood volume pulse and skin conductance.

these reactions have not been shown to be related to the fields.” They found that EMF had no effect on the ES group or the control group when they didn’t know when they were being exposed.

A similar double-blind randomized study published in the British Medical Journal was conducted by doctors at King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry in London, and led by G. James Rubin, Ph.D.

The number of ES participants who believed a signal was present during actual exposure (60%) was similar to those who believed one was present during sham exposure (63%).

In 1997, a report for the European Commission described the results of 13 such experiments and concluded that, although “‘electromagnetic hypersensitive’ people do react in these provocation studies, ...these reactions have not been shown to be related to the fields.”

Among 31 such experiments involving 725 ES participants, they “could find no robust evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity to EMF.” They compassionately concluded that “complaints of ES may mask organic or psychiatric pathology, whereas others may benefit from a course of cognitive behavioral therapy.”

According to doctors Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D., and Stephen Barrett, M.D., the most harmful thing we can do is make accommodations that reinforce their fears and beliefs that they are unhealthy, as that will only worsen their symptoms, further isolate them from others and prevent them from receiving the help they might need.

In other words, we do not help people by spreading sensationalized and unsupportable scares or using the sufferings of troubled souls as entertainment.

What will most help is to spread the science.