I mean, yes, but that doesn't automatically make it safe. You know cellphone mast antennas? They also emit non-ionizing radiation yet you do NOT want to stand near one when it's working - radio burns are no joke.
I don't know if starlink has enough power to cause damage - but regardless, there's a good chance this wouldn't be legal as the device isn't certified to broadcast this way and would fall afoul of regulations.
But then again: IIRC, Starlink is much more focused so power per unit square might be equivalent perhaps? It needs to get to space with a good enough SNR.
The phasing of the array might also amplify the harmful effect, I'd say. But I'm very much not an RF engineer.
The starlink antenna is not very complicated and way less focused than what a modern 4G, LTE, 5G antenna use.
As an example, the latest antennas from Ericsson supports 2000 elements, which allow very narrow beamforming and target tracking (that is phase controlled movement of main beam to track individual phones).
Of course, my point is just that saying "it's non-ionizing radiation" isn't a magical rule that makes it safe. You can absolutely have dangerous or even lethal levels of non ionizing radiation too. (I think I should have used a simpler example - your microwave uses non-ionizing radiation too, yet would most definitely burn you if you put your hand inside it).
The microwave is also generating many hundreds of Watts, up to kW of radio waves, a bit like the mobile base station. In slightly different frequencies. It is still several orders of magnitude less than what Starlink emits from the antenna.
There's a formula for safe distance due to the heating effects that you have to be familiar with if you want an amateur radio license. There are some funny issues there, for example certain body parts being resonant to certain frequencies.
I don’t think malice was intended but your response seems shaming. Try instead thinking why others might not know something you consider to be obvious.
I'm pretty sure no radioactive decay has ever been observed emitting a neuron (a brain cell), though you probably mean "neutron", which would be correct.
I was only making a joke - "iodizing" radiation would be radiation that causes something to react with iodine, which no known form of radiation would. The GP meant "ionizing" radiation, which is what you are describing as well.
Now that you mention it, I suppose it's possible for ionizing radiation to cause something to react with iodine, making it "iodizing" radiation as well.
Either way, radio waves are non-ionizing radiation. To the extent that they can create problems in the human body, they will do it by causing heating (like microwaves), not by stripping off electrons to create ions (and certainly not by forcing other molecules to react with iodine).
