A double blinded Experiment by a person/institute I would trust on that would be enough to convince me. I might be convinced by lesser evidence.
Current epistemic state is kinda sceptical whether most current evidence on this is trash. I find causal mechanisms on this plausible, though not sure if investigating this would sink lots of time.
1,000What causal mechanism do you find feasible? Available evidence seems inconsistent with claims of being able to detect EMF by non-thermal effects in general:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20536
I would be fully willing to setup up the double-blind 5m test for wi-fi, should anybody claim to be able to do so and willing to bet enough to cover costs.
@CodeandSolder I Literally Ski med the paper I linkes in the other market for 1 Minute and saw some biology stuff I don't understand, but that didn't seem to be literally anti-reducionist ala Homeopathy etc. and then thought I might as well try a Manifold market. By now it has occured to me to check the physics of the situation (how much energy does a wifi Transmitter transmit? 1 Watt? Seems like you would get very fast to the point where there is no difference compared to radiation in the background?) which make this all seem much less plausible.
@Tassilo 100mW, this paper: https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/el.2014.0834 gives 0.2V/m and linear-ish falloff, giving around 0.04V/m at 5m, order of magnitude below city background: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935114002254
But technically that theoretical detection method could be sensitive to a limited part of the spectrum and counting just 2.4GHz it's way above background.
Also (at the very least most) people have no noticable effects with exposure limits around 50V/m: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv
That would not be quite impossible but certainly odd.