it's only objective in the context of people who understand the magnitude of the numbers being quoted. No data is provided as to alternate sources of radiation. An analogy is made by the manufacturer, but they have incentive to claim that level is as low as possible.

And, without any other information, the specific quotation being presented appears to imply you think it's no big deal (since you didn't offer any interpretation or make a statement relating to your opinion on the matter).

(though to note, I didn't downvote you, I'm just explaining how the information could be seen as "subjective" and not "objective").

I don't think you should be downvoted, but realize that people might be responding negatively because the citation you provided is exactly the citation that defenders of the vans and backscatter scanners at airports provide to dismiss safety concerns. So, without context around your citation, it might seem that you're trying to provide an opinionated defense of the safety of the vans.

As others have mentioned, there are also issues regarding whether those numbers can really be interpreted to mean that they are relatively safe. The manufacturers of backscatter tech claim that's true, but others suggest that because of the concentration in the skin, it's not a good estimate of safety. To interpret your cited numbers, the discussion also needs that side of the story, which other commenters have provided, but your original post did not.

> there are also issues regarding whether those numbers can really be interpreted to mean that they are relatively safe.

And contributing the manufacturer's stated specifications ADDS to that conversation, which meets the criteria for 'goodness'.

Not directing this at you, as you've already acknowledged that the OP should not have been downvoted, but additive facts should, probably as a rule, never be downvoted on account of knee-jerk reactions.