> uncertainty about the harmful effects of that radiation
Personally I don't think there is much there to be concerned about. We know these waves penetrate less than 1mm into your skin, and that the only way they can cause damage is by thermal effects. We know it's not ionizing radiation, not by a long shot. I believe getting a sunburn at the beach is far worse.
I think the privacy concerns, and the frequently low efficiacy/high-false-positive rate of these machines are far more cause for concern.
Maybe it's not a good comparison, IDK. The trouble with getting a sunburn is because UV radiation is ionizing, and we know that causes cancer. Even if you don't get sunburnt, frequent unprotected exposure to strong sun increases cancer risk.
Maybe going to the sauna is a better comparison? We don't really have a consistent way of comparing effects of different types of non-ionizing radiation.
I'm pretty sure that even if they couldn't get the actual images out of the machine, they can easily take a picture of the image with their mobile cameras.
Couldn't the TSA agent viewing these images take a picture with their smartphone? That's just off the top of my head.
I'm more curious about any research into health effects of millimeter wave scans? My business partner always opts out claiming this but could never provide evidence.
I haven't heard of any conclusive evidence that it doesn't harm either (and how could there be one, since they haven't been used for that long), but why take the risk in the first place