By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this.
But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else.
Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage.
I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)
The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level TSA official would.
But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else.
Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage.
I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)