Not doing this to start an argument, but here is another report that supports the idea that the Moon is not a desert:
\
“NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft has returned data that indicate ice may make up as much as 22 percent of the surface material in a crater located on the moon’s south pole.”

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=37502

Joe,

You are right. I recognized the uncertainty of these results in my very first sentence. I should have included a question mark in my headline. I have made this change now.

“I’m aware that these results contradict the radar and spectral results. However, in science this just means that one of these results is wrong somewhere. Finding out who is the challenge.”

Then wasn’t it a bit premature to title your article “The Moon: a desert after all” with not question marks or caveats?

Yes, more or less. Eke et al. claim that the LEND instrument (in its collimated (i.e., high-resolution) mode ONLY) is not measuring medium energy (epithermal) neutrons, but moderately high energy neutrons. But the real issue is that their counting statistics are much poorer than advertised; less than a few percent of the total signal is measuring “hydrogen” (to the extent that is being measured at all). The image you show in your post basically looks like noise. Thus, their conclusion about low hydrogen contents and the non-correspondence with permanently dark areas is questionable at best.

The number of prestigious authors on a paper is no guarantee of its scientific validity.

I wrote on this topic in my blog last March (HERE).

Hi Paul,

Thank you for providing additional information. I especially appreciate it when an actual lunar scientist chimes in.

I’m aware that these results contradict the radar and spectral results. However, in science this just means that one of these results is wrong somewhere. Finding out who is the challenge. And in science, majority does not have to rule. One result can invalidate the results of a hundred papers, it if catches something everyone else missed.

I’ve read the paper you offered above (Eke et al), and if I understand it correctly, it is saying that there is a problem with this particular LRO instrument, dubbed LEND. Eke et al claim that the instrument data is contaminated from another source which cannot now be determined, thus making its results untrustworthy. Is my interpretation correct?

At the same time, the paper I referenced originally (Sanin et al), includes as co-authors some of the most well known and respected planetary scientists in the field. If the data was that flawed, I can’t imagine them putting their names on this paper.

I and my readers would certainly appreciate more information. I have just now emailed one of the co-authors of Sanin et al to see if he can give me his perspective on this question.