Re: Not really equivalent
Well... the issue is that they gave them the dose all at once, and a quick check around the numbers makes me think it's a lot higher than anyone would expect to be exposed to in space.
Skylab 4 was an 84 day mission. The astronauts were exposed to about 17 rems cumulative over that time, or 0.17 Grays. That's for 84 days, or a rate of 0.0000082 Gy/minute (Assuming I can indeed count and am not ballsing up the conversion between rems and Grays, and I'd appreciate if someone checked the maths). This test exposed the mice to between 0.5 and 1 Gy per minute for a short but sustained period. If the skylab astronauts had suffered that sort of radiation absorption for the entire mission then they would have take on board 120,000 Grays of radiation. They'd be dead. In fact they'd probably have cooked right through.
This experiment suffers the same issue that a lot of mouse experiments suffer - they expose the mice to an unrealistically high dose of whatever is being tested and assume a linear relationship between dose and effect, and assume that a single large dose is equivalent to a chronic low dose. They don't examine whether there's an effect from low-level cumulative radiation exposure. They just blast them in the brain with what would be a fatal dose of radiation if it was sustained for more than a minute, and then act surprised when they turn out brain damaged.
Thing is, even assuming there is a cumulative effect from radiation, you have to account for the body's ability to absorb and adapt to radiation over a sustained period. If you expose someone to a cumulatively high dose of radiation over a period of a few years they will likely not suffer any effects from it, beyond an increased risk of particular cancers. Expose them to the same high dose of radiation over a second and their organs will melt and dribble out of their behind.
tl;dr the experiment assumes a linear relationship between dose and effect. The experiment posited an unrealistic environment and did not test what would happen in reality.
(and an assumption that the 1:1 rad/rem relationship holds in the particular situation described)