This sounds wrong. It's been decades since my last chemistry class, so I sure could be wrong. But IIRC organic covalent bonds aren't particularly weaker than say ionic bonds, which obviously would be subject to ionizing radiation.

No argument with the other referenced effects. But AFAIK the key argument about non-ionizing radiation is specifically that it can't break covalent bonds.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/covalent-bonds-crack-und...

And there's always good old oxidation-reduction, where adding a little heat (from non-ionizing radiation) pushes the reaction in one way instead of another. And since with RF this heat will penetrate and concentrate into the places that absorb the given wavelengths (i.e.: average vs max), it isn't quite the same thing as being "just a little warmer."

There's also denaturation, where primary structure is intact, but secondary/tertiary/... are altered--which can significantly effect function.

I'm not advocating for or against RF here, as much as I'm pointing out that life is complicated, and maybe we should approach it with humility instead of the physics 101 midwittery that plagues this horrible PR board.

And if that doesn't satisfy, maybe John von Neumann will get through:

“If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.”