I was astonished by my holiday reading Brian Cox's http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364553380&sr=1-5 that in every commonplace energy transaction, even boiling a kettle, change in E is accompanied by change in m - albeit disappearingly tiny change in m, because c2 is so huge. That happens not just in nuclear reactions, but all the time everywhere. So perhaps not surprising that new isotopes arise.

Curious and a bit interesting. Could be a signpost to something important but there's so much mad extrapolation in that article it's difficult to tell. I'm glad people are looking at this sort of thing but it's really a waste of time making such a fuss about it while it's so speculative.

I'll just add a word from the science point of view, too.

Changes in isotope abundance are often indicative of chemical, rather than nuclear processes.

Before the researchers can claim that nuclear reactions are removing, adding or transmuting particular mercury isotopes, they need to demonstrate that they really are accounting for all the mercury. It is quite possible that some mercury isotopes are preferentially absorbed into the bulb's solid components such as phosphor, glass and electrodes. Unless they grind up the whole bulb and analyse the solids as well as the gas, they have proved nothing. And of course, they need to be satisfied that no mercury has escaped from the bulb altogether - unlikely as that sounds.

Sorry, I haven't been able to consult the original paper (behind paywall), so I can't say whether these basic issues have been handled by the researchers.

Posted By: rhamduChanges in isotope abundance are often indicative of chemical, rather than nuclear processes.

Remember these guys:
Fleischmann and Pons

Nuclear reactions take place all the time and at random.

They can be triggered by for instance bombardment with alpha particles

I can't see them taking place in fl tubes.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/02/Mercury-Fluorescent-Bulbs-Unique-Isotope.html

"Scientists analyze the ratios of mercury isotopes to identify the source of the metal found in lakes, oceans, and the atmosphere. Although researchers know the unique ratios found in sources such as coal, they currently don’t have an isotope fingerprint for mercury found in compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

Chris Mead of Arizona State University and his colleagues thought that chemical processes inside CFLs might produce a unique isotopic composition for mercury lodged in the bulbs’ glass. Previous studies have shown that when mercury vapor within a fluorescent bulb gets excited it not only generates light but also causes a small fraction of the mercury to become trapped in the bulb’s glass. This process might affect some mercury isotopes more than others, leading to a characteristic ratio of isotopes in the glass.

With this in mind, the researchers turned on 14-watt consumer bulbs and kept them burning continuously for 1,700, 3,600, 10,000 or 16,000 hours. Afterwards, they broke each bulb and separated the mercury trapped in the glass from the remainder of the mercury. Using a multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer, the team measured the isotopic composition of this trapped mercury. Then they compared the mercury isotope ratios in their samples to those from a known mercury standard. The difference between these sets of ratios represents a unique isotopic signal for the CFL mercury. Mead was surprised by the findings: The isotope ratios found in the CFL mercury were much larger than those found in other sources."

I think I have created an atomic reator in my kitchen CFL while using a steamer.
So all I need is a 2 kW wall paper striper to get the light flashing away, maybe if I get two of them wired together they will take turns. That's me low energy lighting sorted
http://youtu.be/feefRhS-aeQ

Plymouth and the OU don't have a copy

I just skimmed it. AFAICT, the claim is that certain isotopes are preferentially absorbed into the glass, not that the overall balance of isotopes has changed.

Oh well.

Posted By: tonyIsotopes are known to react physically very slightly differently and in some circumstances the speed of a chemical reaction can vary for different isotopes so nothing new here.

What's new is that the distribution of isotopes does not match the known theory. So there is need of a new theory. But no need for one that involves LENRs.