The problem is that most people aren't using half their brain. They are using their amygdala (governs emotional response) rather than using their cerebrum to make a logical assessment of the risk. Just because you are more afraid of something, doesn't mean the actual risk is higher.

So let's do the math:
Assume that TSA had backscatter as primary screening for the entire decade 2000 - 2010 and this backscatter imaging allowed them to stop every terrorist attempt on an airplane. There were 7 billion enplanements over that decade. Independent researchers say the cancer risk if TSA relies on x-ray backscatter is approximately 1 in 20 million. (Rez et al)

7 billion divided by 20 million = 350 cancer cases would have been caused from using backscatter imaging for the past decade. In that same time period, 674 air passengers were threatened by terrorism (the four 9/11 flights, shoe bomber, Christmas bomber)

So for the entire decade from 2000 - 2010, the risk of dying from a terrorist being on your plane was TWICE the risk of cancer if the TSA had used the backscatter machines.

But TSA says the backscatter risk is negligible, it's equivalent to the risk of death when you drive in your car for one minute. Using that same logic, the risk of dying in a terror incident is equal to your risk of dying from riding in a car for two minutes.

There is a risk, but I think that it is very small, even negligible.

I don't want "no security", but I want reasonable, non-invasive security in line with the actual risks. I put on my seatbelt when I get in a car. I don't put on a racing harness and a helmet.