The problem with science fans is that they don't understand the limits of science and why they're essential for the process of science. They treat science more like a religion, and try to lend credibility to their beliefs (both scientific and otherwise) by calling them scientific of saying that they're based in science. This is bad for the public understanding of science and needs to stop.
Bringing that back in to context, it's pretty clear that there is no evidence for actual EHS. There are no known cases of EHS where the patent can detect the presence of wifi/etc under controlled conditions. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that EHS is a real phenomenon. You're rightly justified in denying it's existence.
This is where things get difficult for the zealous, if under-educated, fans of science. See, when they say EHS doesn't exist, they want that statement backed by the full weight of science. They believe that any belief that is not a scientific belief must necessarily be nonsense. The problem, of course, is that science can't speak to the nonexistence of anything. So, they ignore that uncomfortable fact and do the worst thing they could possibly do, assuming that they actually believe science is important: Insist that their unscientific claim is scientific.
What do you call something attributed to science that is, in reality, unscientific? If you believe that we shouldn't "give pseudoscience an inch", would you accept or reject unscientific statements that claimed to be scientific?