There's a real problem for traditional Mars science here.

Either the anomalies are coming from extraordinarily strong sources, compared to those on Earth, or they extend to extraordinary depth, but are more "reasonable" strength.

The former is throwing people in knots as they try to explain what mineralogy is responsible, and compare it to Mars meteorites which show much weaker intensities.

The latter suggests a vey cold Mars with low heat flow. The "establishment" doesn't like this idea. It makes Mars more like Gannymede or Callisto, than like Earth.

As you may guess, my own version of Ockham's razor prefers the latter, since the way I see Mars, all the evidence points to a freezer stuck on "Superfreeze".

I'm still arguing this point with an editor and a referee or two, but with luck the paper should make it *this* time.