> When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t c

> When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear evidence.” The study was conducted on Male and Female Mice and Rats and initially found no conclusive evidence at all. On reevaluation peer reviewers found that there was evidence for Male Rats only (as I read it) which is a pretty weak result. The full study results are here: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/docs/2018/march/index.html https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/doc...