Below is a popup that appears on the MARIE website:

===============================================

*** NOTICE ***
Press Release Update: A Message From the Principal Investigator
March 14, 2003

A sensationalistic and highly misleading report concerning MARIE results was widely circulated by the Associated Press yesterday following a 2001 Mars Odyssey press conference. It is important to correct the false impression readers were given about the radiation risks facing possible future explorers at Mars. The facts are these:

(1) MARIE has confirmed expectations that the radiation dose equivalent in orbit around Mars is significantly higher than that in low-Earth orbit.

(2) Based on 11 months of accumulated MARIE data, we estimate that astronauts on a hypothetical 3-year mission to Mars and back would receive a dose equivalent of about 1 Sievert. Most of the dose equivalent would be accumulated during the transits between Earth and Mars, estimated to account for half of the total mission time.

(3) NASA career limits for radiation exposure are currently 0.5 to 3 Sieverts, depending on the age at exposure and gender of individual astronauts, however these do not apply for a Mars mission because of the large uncertainties in estimating cancer and other risks from heavy ions contained in the GCR, for which no human data to make risk estimates is available.

(4) The career limits for low Earth orbit are based on best estimates of a 3% increase in fatal cancer risk over the course of a lifetime, according to our current understanding of the links between radiation exposure and cancer induction. Limits for exploration missions such as Mars exploration have not been set at this time.

Given these facts, the radiation health risk to astronauts on a possible Mars mission are difficult to assess at this time, altough the physical enviroment is well characterized by MARIE and past science efforts. Because NASA is legally and ethically obligated to protect astronauts from radiation exposure to the greatest extent that is practical, the radiation health risks cannot be ignored. However, they should also not be exaggerated or overstated, as was the case in the AP article. The uncertanties in risk estimates do not indicate that the current estimates are either too high or too low, only that further research into, and knowledge of, the health effects of the GCR are needed before NASA could approve sending humans to Mars.