So the question is whether the reports are simply misinterpretations of some carefully couched -- and confusing -- findings, or are they examples of deliberate misinformation.

I don't think the AP would deliberately 'falsify' the findings, but I can well imagine that a writer, even an experienced science writer, could become confused in trying to report those findings, and could easily exaggerate, say, the radiation dangers on or above Mars. No bad intent, probably, but these are the kinds of errors that give rise to my earlier satiric post "Everyone knows..."

The surface of Mars may be dangerous and contact with it may be "instantly" fatal. We don't know, and we have no easy way to find out.

Many lines of study and reporting have led to assumptions that Mars is an extremely hostile place for man and machine. It's really cold, the air is really thin and really unbreathable, there may be no easily accessible water, and there may be nasty contaminants in any water that is found. The dust may be the most dangerous substance of all. We just don't know and can't be sure.

But the real dangers don't need to be exaggerated.

Thanks for pointing out that in the case of low orbit radiation, the reporting here may well be flawed.

Cheers, BRFelix