We can though. Using today's technology we can easily go to Mars and live in underground habitats and be subject to only a moderate increase in health risks from radiation absorbed during the trip. Said health risks would be less than what a decent number of current Earth-bound professions face, and those people don't even get to go to Mars.
What we are currently doing on Mars remotely is absolutely incredible and at the upper limit of our present capabilities. Don't think for a second that having "today's technology" does not still require a herculean effort, if we even have a 5% chance of pulling it off before funding (which would be in the trillions) is cut.
I was specifically refuting the claim that the radiation problem is a blocker, when in fact it is just a minor nuisance. Storms posed more of a danger to the first ships exploring the new world than radiation will to Mars colonists, and that didn't stop anyone.
Do you have a link to a specific page within that report demonstrating your point? I skimmed through it and all I saw is that it says that there are some risks. Obviously I'm not denying that. It doesn't say at all that the risks are so high that we can't do missions with current technology (which provides minimal to no radiation shielding in transit). Mainly it's saying that further study is merited, which I absolutely agree with. I also think we don't need to hold off on going until we achieve perfect mitigation, and I believe most NASA employees would agree with me on that as well.
