Thanks Beest. I appreciate your pulling this information together. I didn't understand that the term "effective" dose meant that they were already taking into consideration the different tissues being irradiated vs. the entire body.

I'm more receptive to information from the FDA than the TSA, although they still aren't my ideal of a trusted authority. But I skimmed the report you linked and saw that Johns Hopkins had also reviewed one of these scanners, and I went to their report too:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf

It says basically the same thing. So I guess I trust that these are basically safe. It's better to limit exposure to radiation where you can, but at the same time, the scanner is a lot more convenient than getting groped. I think after skimming the FDA report and the John's Hopkins report, I'd probably choose the scanner after all.

I'm lucky to get away with scanning, these days, even with my dark glasses on.
Groping is out after what the judge said last time.

As long as they let me grope all the girls over 18, they can scan to their heart content

The reports are based on theoretical exposure. There is no calibration mechanism in place to check them. And the TSA employees are not allowed to wear dosimeters.

Exactly. And why should they wear dosimeters, comrade? Are you suggesting that the people's backscatter machines are anything less than safe, if not health enhancing? Perhaps you need some re-education?