I'm not arguing the efficacy of the scanners for detecting explosives. I'm arguing that people are making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to the radiation they're being exposed to.

and no one really knows at this point, because no one who doesn't have a financial interest has been able to rigorously examine the machines

Go check out the sources in the "Health Concerns" portion of the article and try and tell me that every one of them has a financial interest. Sources like Johns Hopkins, Columbia University, The Health Physics Society, The American College of Radiology. I could go on...

It's likely to be less ionising radiation than, say, a transpolar flight-

Yes, far less.

Perspective:

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan..." (1)

"..the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States..." (1)

"...less than the dose a person receives during four minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from two minutes of airline flight." (2)

1.

2.