Most do not consider the effect of mass "creation" by sunlight in a plant, because it does not create any new protrons or neutrons, and the mass gain is so insignificant compared to the amount of carbon gain by respiration.
Urr, there is no mass 'creation' in light photosynthesis. The light is used to split an electron from chlorophyll (which it regains later from water), so there's no energy to mass done here.
Also, the mass 'loss' in a nuclear reaction is a fundamental component to the process, the discovery of it was quite major in the field. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say it's poetic waxing.
Been a few decades, but I remember (hopefully accurately) that when the formulas are tracked in chemical reactions, in photosynthesis for example, there would be nanoscopic increases in the atomic mass of the resultant molecules when energy is added to a system, and a loss when energy is removed. of course we see this as the chemical "energy" of the bonds, but, as I understand it, this energy is stored as mass. Of course I am talking about even smaller masses. Obviously the amount of energy stored in a glucose molecule, is surely many magnitudes smaller than the amount of energy that is released from the decay of a Uranium atom. I would have to more than a cursory look to find this, but I am pretty sure that it supports my point. We do not say "wow, we turned mass into energy" but we know we do not create it from nothing. So saying a nuclear reactor gets power from the mass that is lost, (though it no net loss of particles) may be accurate, but we in the industry point out that the power comes from the kinetic energy from the fission fragments. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235Just as kinetic energy is transferred to potential energy on a roller coaster, and back again, I believe that chemical potential energy is not magically held there by the fact that chemical bonds use energy. Some use energy (endothermic) and some create energy (exothermic). I would bet that the bonds that, when broken, releases energy, that potential chemical energy could be measures as an increase in mass. I also bet that it would be very hard to measure it, as we are talking the edge of theory here, but that is what I meant. the increase in weight of plant tissue is 99.999999? accounted for by CO2 and water and other stuff, so talking about the energy stored in the chemical reactions is a small portion. (I do concede it may not have been a good analogy.... I was typing it while a co-worker was talking to me about his plans for the weekend..hehehe)
Same with U-235. people talk about the weight loss like the reactor is going to get lighter as we run it. sure, in theory, but the fact is, the weight loss is best pondered by physicists. When I stood for my NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Board, if I had said "the energy comes converting mass into energy" I would of been booted out of the Board. So forgive me if I do not concede the point quickly.
to wrap it up, that is like, to me, when you are asked "why does this rice taste sweet?" saying "because you have sensory organs in your mouth that can sense the presence of sugars, and your brain interprets these sensations as "sweet"." instead of saying "oh, I mistook the sugar for salt, so it has a little sugar in it".
Both are true, but what answer is correct? depends on our intrepretation of what was really asked. and that might be even more hard to guess.
