YouTube Debunkers Risk Spreading Misinformation If They Don’t Fact-Check Themselves
On EMF myths, YouTube ghost hunts, and what good observation actually looks like
First published in 2024 on the Hayley is a Ghost blog
YouTube is filled with low-quality videos of ghost hunters claiming to capture paranormal activity, often relying on poorly filmed or faked footage. As this trend has grown over the years, it has been accompanied by the rise of YouTube Debunkers, offering alternative explanations and debunking the “evidence” presented by these ghost hunting channels.
Beardo Visits 30 East Drive
In August 2024, the BeardoGetsScared debunking channel, shared a video of his ghost hunt at 30 East Drive, a UK site famed for its supposed poltergeist, the Black Monk of Pontefract. Curious to see a debunker’s approach, I watched the video but was left disappointed.
Beardo reported that his team felt “freaked out” upon arrival but used a Trifield meter to find strong EMF readings from the boiler upstairs. From examining the video, it looks like he is using a £30 device from Amazon which measures electric and magnetic fields, as well as temperature. Beardo’s team concluded the boiler might explain the strange feelings - this was the first red flag.
Later in the video, the Trifield meter is placed on the bathroom floor where it registers up to 180 mG (though it’s unclear if this is mG or µT). The meter is near a doorframe, with an electric socket on the opposite side of the wall. The investigators present react, saying:
That’s a ridiculous amount of EMF
“180… that’s worrying levels.
“I don’t know if that’s dangerous... but that’s going to cause horrible feelings.”
Beardo then shows a carbon monoxide detector by the boiler in another room, explaining that they’re checking if the “hangover feeling” experienced on a previous visit was caused by a carbon monoxide leak, though the detector showed nothing. He then suggests the high EMF in the bathroom could still be a factor for consideration.
EMFs In Your Home Are Not Dangerous
The idea that EMF in your home could be dangerous, as stated in the video, is based on misinformation that claims radiation from power sources can cause serious health conditions, such as cancer. There is no evidence to support this or similar claims.1
EMFs from household appliances and nearby power lines are considered safe at typical exposure levels. Research has consistently found no evidence that low-frequency EMFs pose significant health risks. The idea that EMF is harmful is a popular conspiracy which stretches back decades and, in more recent years, has developed into similar fears over wireless technology, mobile phones, and 5G. This misinformation became so prevalent through social media that even Ofcom wrote a rebuttal.2
EMFs Are Unlikely To Make Your Feel Weird
Research on complex electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and anomalous experiences has produced mixed results. Michael Persinger, known for the God Helmet experiments3, claimed to induce such experiences by exposing participants’ temporal lobes to magnetic fields. However, replications failed to reproduce these findings. Granqvist et al.4 conducted a double-blind study to replicate Persinger’s work, and found no evidence that EMFs triggered mystical or sensory experiences; instead, personality traits like absorption and New Age tendencies explained these. Similarly, Chris French’s Haunt Project5 found no support for EMFs causing anomalous experiences.
Some suggest that EMFs must cause odd sensations for those exposed to them because of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which uses magnetic fields (measuring 2-3 Teslas) to induce electric currents in the brain for medical purposes. It is often argued that if this method can affect the brain then EMFs must too, right?
Well, TMS uses fields much stronger than the 180 mG (or 0.000018T) measured at 30 East Drive, which is too weak to cause “horrible feelings”, or any feelings at all. A 2T magnetic field would measure 20,000,000 mG - at this stage I’d be less inclined to look for a leaky boiler and instead search for a hidden MRI scanner!
It’s disappointing to see a YouTube channel which challenges poor evidence of the paranormal itself using misinformation to explain away alleged paranormal activity.
I was hoping for an interesting example of a ghost hunt with a difference. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope YouTube channels dedicated to debunking false or inaccurate claims would themselves make an effort to uphold the values of critical thinking and scientific integrity.
Instead, the video swaps one myth for another by replacing ghosts with unsupported EMF-health claims, and trading careful observation for genre aesthetics. The fix isn’t complicated - be precise about units, sources, and methods, and be conservative about what fields can and can’t do.
Real inquiry is sometimes boring. That’s fine. Some of my favourite nights were just me and my friends hanging around for hours to see if anything - anything at all - happened. Often, it didn’t. That’s not a failure - it’s the point. It’s data in itself. Sometimes, bringing tech into the mix for the sake of following the trends introduces more data than is useful, and this case is good example of that in practice.
The Skeptic | Electromagnetic Fields & Parental Panics: A case study in how science can bring comfort by Julie Frantsve-Hawley
Cook C. M. and Persinger, M. A (1997). ‘Experimental induction of the “sensed presence” in normal subjects and an exceptional subject’ , Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol 85, pp. 683-693 [Online] Available at: [Access PDF here]
Granqvist, P., Fredrikson, M., Unge, P., Hagenfeldt, A., Valind, S., Larhammar, D., & Larsson, M. (2005). ‘Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak complex magnetic fields’, Neuroscience letters, vol. 379, no. 1, pp. 1–6. [Online] Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2004.10.057
French, C. C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., & Davis, R. (2009). ‘The “Haunt” project: an attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound’, Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 619–629. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.10.011