How is this misleading? It's saying it's hurting radio astronomy. What about that statement made you think it was anything other than radio wavelength radiation? Radio telescopes are not interfered with by short wavelength radiation.
Radiation does not solely mean ionising radiation. Yes, people often leap to ionising when radiation is mentioned, but they're wrong.
Radiation is a technical term being used correctly in an article written for an audience likely to know that it refers to satellites unintentionally radiating in bands they're not meant to.
What surprises me is that there's no regulations that cover this, I guess when satellites were the domain of government, they didn't feel the need. But it'd be good if regulators in countries hosting space programs caught up.
PS, light is also ionising radiation at the higher end of the spectrum.
yeah this is the same as saying "cities leak so much radiation it's hurting astronomy". light pollution is a problem, and that's technically a description of it, but it's an intentionally bad one.
I guess I can see that perspective if I imagine myself too ignorant to understand the author’s point and what radiation actually is. Try to consider that cities emit all sorts of radiation, from low frequency radio waves, to UHF/VHF, cellular frequencies, visible light, and like every other object above absolute zero, infrared radiation.. and while not specifically the point, many of those could affect astronomers. So that’s probably why you and OP run against the grain of common logic here..
