How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.
Well, if they're moving them from busy airports to less-busy ones then hypothetically less harm is being done overall, on account of fewer people being exposed.
Less bad is still no good. . . but it's still less bad, too.
If something is harmful, I consider the situation "better" every time significantly fewer people are exposed to the harm. I'd rather have three backscatter scanners operating at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV than operating in Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Yeah - as a resident of Portland, Maine who frequently flies out of my home airport to visit clients, I'm not so psyched about the small airports getting the old radiation machines.
It shows that they're aware of the negative public pressure. They may just be playing a shell game at the moment, but at least the pressure is forcing them to respond.
