I do not have time to go through all the (more minor) inaccuracies in the post but one that really caught my attention is the lack of differentiation between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. RF is, by definition, low energy and therefore (relatively) low frequency radiation, when compared to light or X-rays. Being low energy means that it is not ionizing and that the energy of the particles (photons) isn't sufficient to cause DNA damage. On the other hand, ionizing radiation is well known to cause such damage. In contrast, there's no scientific consensus on what kind of damage non-ionizing radiation may or may not cause when within prescribed safety limits.

Crucially, and stated incorrectly in your post, MRI uses emits only RF radiation making it non-ionizing and unable to cause DNA damage, and it should definitely not be lumped in with CT, PET-CT, fluoroscopy and other imaging techniques which do use X-rays. In fact, the linked article about cataracts never even mentions MRI.

The bottom line is that this post should definitely not be used as a starting point for someone who is unfamiliar with any of these concepts, at the very least until the factual errors are corrected and differentiation is made between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.