There is a well-established principle in journalism that if a headline asks a question there is always a simple answer. But before we get to that I'd like to look at where I got the idea that 5G might be a CIA plot. It was on a bus shelter in Archway, North London. As I spend much of my life worrying about explaining 5G it was a shock to see a flyposter addressing it and I was amazed that anyone might be strongly opposed to it. Indifference perhaps, I once drove round that very Archway roundabout with Jeremy Corbyn as my passenger and completely failed to engage him in a conversation about 5G. "In my day we only had CB radio" he told me.

So as I rode my Boardman Hybrid Pro up to the bus shelter I stopped. Gawped and neatly detached one of the two leaflets blu-tacked to the glass. Let's look at the claims, those that New Scientist would call Fruitloopery.

"Substantial evidence and studies exist to prove that 5G millimetre waves are dangerous to humans and our environment as well as to birds and bees".

Er, no it doesn't. Yes, you can show that a high power 28 GHz beam can do damage but not at the power levels being proposed for 5G. To make the claim above would be like saying "It's been proved that loud noises can cause permanent hearing loss so we should ban all orchestras".

"Those most at risk include the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled".

I've been following the rubbish talked about the dangers of mobile phones for thirty years and this is an oft-repeated lie. It has its basis in the  Stewart Report of 1999. What the report said was that although we've looked really hard and not found any signs that there might be any harm from mobile phones, if there are any gaps in our knowledge it may be that young children are more vulnerable. The only health issue Stewart actually identified was from people driving while using a mobile phone. The addition of the infirm, elderly and disabled is, however, a new one on me. Disabled is such a broad brush it's a strange inclusion. Lauren Steadman is clearly disabled, yet one of the fittest people you'll encounter.

"Published studies show that current wireless exposure already causes cancers, alters brain development and contributes too [sic] many of our health problems"

No, they don't. At least not anything published anywhere with a smidgen of credibility.  The mobile phone has been the most accepted piece of technology in the history of mankind. There are more mobile phones in use than there are people on the planet. People are more likely to own a mobile phone than own a toothbrush. We've had the "current wireless exposure" in the mass market at 900 MHz since 1985 and at 1800 MHz since 1994. Despite all these billions of people and decades of use there is no evidence of ill-effect. Millions has been spent looking for detrimental effects of exposure to mobile phones and none found. I was chosen at random - not as a journalist or as someone in the industry - to take part in a cohort study which follows people over decades and asks about their phone use and health. Every few years I get emailed a link to a survey to fill in. I was asked as an early user of Orange. As far as I know the research is still on-going but that's the point. Governments do take this research seariously and it's failed to find anything.

"Living near phone masts cause head aches, memory problems, dizziness, depression and sleep problems as well as life threatning cancers yet Govt's  are preparing to install small cell towers and wireless facilities everywhere including on streetlights and utility poles as well as covering the whole country with small cell towers between 100 to 300 metres apart and directly in front of our homes."

Deep sign. No, no, no. There might be some illogical psychosomatic effects, that because people believe that the cell site near their home is affecting them it actually is, but in terms of direct medical harm this is a fiction. There is a bit which is almost correct in that there are plans for lots of small cells, but small cells and cell towers are different things. "Small cell tower" is an oxymoron. It's the mobile phone networks planning the small cell installation not the government, and as for covering the whole country we can only wish that were true.

It rambles on in a similar vein. I'll leave you to read the rest of it but I have done a bit more fact-checking. I can't find anything about Lloyds of London and 5G other than a note about the sharing economy and a call for less government regulation. Yes, the CIA invests in technology, I bet they buy a lot of stationary and toilet paper too. You can hardly say that Andrex has been weaponised as a result.

The leaflet embraces the usual non-sequitur arguments of the desperate and finally resorts to employing facts which have nothing to do with the arguments they are making. I particularly like the mention of Professor William Webb and I suspect the comments come from a very polarised reading of his excellent book The 5G Myth. In it and in a couple of debates I've attended and in conversations we've had he does indeed say that 5G is not the answer to connectivity. But what he argues for is not just fibre optic cables - although everyone agrees we need more of those - what William Webb proposes is substantially more spending on 4G and upgrading of wireless internet infrastructure. This is completely contrary to the views of the leaflet so it seems odd to cite William as a reference. Indeed when I showed him the leaflet William told me

"Of course, there are always detractors for almost any new technology, and health concerns around mobile phones have been a feature for at least 30 years now - still without any proof. For all its flaws, the criticisms levelled here against 5G are, as you'd imagine, rather ridiculous. It's amusing that to find out more you're encouraged to visit a website...which most will do using their mobile phone!"

For even more Fruitloopery you might be amused to visit the author's website or facebook page. You'll dsicover a rich seam of "truths" about chemtrails and vaccines.

At the start of this piece I said there is a well-established principle in journalism that if a headline asks a question there is always a simple answer. That answer is always "No".

 Simon Rockman