Different fields define the EM energy spectrum differently based on use. You can either argue that "microwave" is one end of the "RF spectrum", or that "microwave" and "radio" are two separate sub-categories of EM energy. My field teaches to the latter.

In the end it is an uninteresting point however because it is an argument over what word to use, not fundamental differences in nature. The point I was making earlier which was misinterpreted was that microwave interacts with matter in a fundamentally different way than lower frequency RF, which is critically important to the topic of TFA. Microwaves excite dipoles on the atomic and bio-molecular scale. Lower frequency RF requires some sort of conductive material (or A LOT of energy) to form an antenna, on the other hand, which is why we are transparent to "RF" but not "microwave" (and hence, why some fields treat them separately).

What is your field? What textbook says that "microwave" and "radio" are different? I've been citing a lot of sources here. Just this one from you would be appreciated.