I noticed cold fusion was not proposed as an explanation for mantis shrimp.

It wouldn’t be ‘cold’ if considered on the micro-scale.

These gamma rays, coming out of the clouds, are not cold fusion. They are high energy reactions to high energy actions.

A high energy environment seems to exist within regions of cavitation utilized by Mantis/Pistol shrimp — Sonoluminescence in cavitation is not disclosed to be fully understood. Though initial *bubble fusion* work and results seems in question due to scientific misconduct, it is within these tiny bubbles where I’d expect such reactions may possibly be encouraged to occure while the surrounding media would still be relatively ‘cool’:

It was realized that the temperature inside the bubble was hot enough to melt steel. Interest in sonoluminescence was renewed when an inner temperature of such a bubble well above one million kelvins was postulated. This temperature is thus far not conclusively proven; rather, recent experiments conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign indicate temperatures around 20000 K. …
…An unusually exotic hypothesis of sonoluminescence, which has received much popular attention, is the Casimir energy hypothesis suggested by noted physicist Julian Schwinger and more thoroughly considered in a paper by Claudia Eberlein of the University of Sussex. Eberlein’s paper suggests that the light in sonoluminescence is generated by the vacuum within the bubble in a process similar to Hawking radiation, the radiation generated at the event horizon of black holes. According to this vacuum energy explanation, since quantum theory holds that vacuum contains virtual particles, the rapidly moving interface between water and gas converts virtual photons into real photons… If true, sonoluminescence may be the first observable example of quantum vacuum radiation. The argument has been made that sonoluminescence releases too large an amount of energy and releases the energy on too short a time scale to be consistent with the vacuum energy explanation, although other credible sources argue the vacuum energy explanation might yet prove to be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

^^ It is noted that such temperatures would be difficult to verify due to the opaqueness of water to various frequencies.

I’m thinking cavitation may be a way to concentrate ‘kludgy’ energy input somewhat like ‘optically pumping’ a laser. The bottom cleanly busting out of a beer bottle due to a not-so-forcefull slap from a gloved hand might illustrate this:

since hitting the bottle accelerates it only briefly, the pressure at the bottom of the bottle quickly returns to normal. As such, the bubbles collapse. However, they mysteriously collapse about 10 times faster than they formed in the first place. These violent reactions catastrophically crack the bottom of the bottle. The water floods out afterward.

http://www.livescience.com/24469-bottle-exploding-secret-revealed.html

These specialized search engines are common, and they are not china!

when I make the search my resulst are very different
https://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&as_q=&as_epq=cold+fusion&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=countryUS&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

you have the APS google, like china have their own google?

about the peer review, ad ul rahman loma who wrote teh article on heat/he4 correlation metaanalysis explains that the peer review was real and implied many changes

“Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from
researchers in the field of LENR.
These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer reviewer
assigned by Current Science.

The anonymous reviewer of my paper was familiar with physics and not with cold fusion, and was skeptical at first.
Yes, I modified my paper extensively in response to his critique and it is, no doubt,
better for it.
Apparently, he was convinced, he gave a glowing recommendation for publication.”

Anyway some people will never admit they were fooled, by APS and Caltech in may 1989.

others can read

All articles published in Current Science, especially editorials, opinions and commentaries, letters and book reviews, are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy of Sciences.

Here are a few more sources on cold fusion: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0011605016028824%3Aj8rkr4-so0i&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22cold+fusion%22&sa=Search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22cold%20fusion%22&gsc.page=1

Theory, by the way, is a key approach we use in science to judge the reality of something.

You shouls simply try to read the articles in las issue of Current Science

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/toc.php?vol=108&issue=04

maybe start with that
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/cs/Volumes/108/04/0535.pdf

(you can ignore theory article, it is useless to judge the reality of something).

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/660/art%253A10.1140%252Fepjc%252Fs10052-014-2894-3.pdf?auth66=1424670599_376e89a2f73c4e5167216dbc7b44676f&ext=.pdf

Note the reference to radon near the end. It sounds like they’re saying there’s an environmental contamination of radon in the vicinity of Naples. This would explain why the positive results of LENR experiments occur in Italy.

This would mean it has nothing at all to do with the experimental device. LENR doesn’t exist, and the excess heat detected by the experiments is entirely due to the radioactive decay of radon! So if just a trace amount of radon in the environment has produced enough energy to fake LENR, just think how much energy we could get by actually collecting radon!