Posts by Anonymous

goldberry said:You can only say something like that if you don't really know Pixies very well...

But hey, whatever, at least you're making an effort to learn them.

This reminds me of those "who's the biggest patriot" competitions we see all the time.🙄

Robin Booth said:Kim Deal is huge and .... ....FBI😁

Seriously, Frank Sinatra and Kim Kardashian look like a trailer park couple. 😁

The concert was awesome. They felt a little unpolished at times, but nothing enough to ruin the vibe.

driftingnomad68 said:I really hope you're just kidding around with this.

The thing is, that piece of junk can't do anything without you hopping online and following some tedious, step-by-step guide just to scrub a virus.

They’re charging like $300 for it, and don't even get me started on the cost of updates. 🙄

Exactly.
I just didn't have the patience to sit there and explain it all to them.

Mr. X said:I’ve made my point... now it’s your turn to make yours.

SUSE 9.1 😁
honestly, I don't even feel like I need antivirus software on this thing. 👋

Mr. X said:What's the issue here?🙄

Ford
Mr. X😁

regarding the claim that McAfee is the worst antivirus out there

Mr. X said:McAfee👍

Most of those "famous" viruses are already handled by regular updates...

🙂
dontsrat

Raymond Rodriguez40 said:Look, let’s be real here—as I mentioned to Cela before, having 333MHz doesn't mean a thing if my hardware can pump out 500MB/s because it's running at a much higher clock speed. All that tweaking you're doing just results in some marginal gains. With DDR333, you're basically just trying to hit the maximum bandwidth for that frequency, which is 2700MB/s. You won't get a single millimeter more out of it. Your tuning is useless if your bandwidth bottleneck is already too narrow... you know what I mean?

I hear you, but Sam Evans3 definitely messed up those timings, which wasn't right, and I think everyone else agrees on that. I actually dug up some old screenshots from when I was messing around with this stuff a while back. Obviously, there's a massive difference between an FSB of 333 and 500—no question there—but what's the actual difference between running 333 via SPD versus aggressive 333 settings, or moving up to 400 via SPD?
Here’s a specific example that shows why bumping the FSB is the real winner, but also proves that playing with timings actually helps:

Pcmark01

FSB 333 via SPD 8-4-4-2.5 | CPU 5640, memory 4644
FSB 333 manual 7-3-3-2.5 | CPU 5710, memory 5083
FSB 400 via SPD 8-4-4-2.5 | CPU 6855, memory 5836

So, if we just tighten the timings, we pick up 400 points. If we bump the FSB, we gain 1200 points—that's a third of the total, which is definitely not nothing. If I had something better than PQI, I could probably pull even higher numbers, but the raw digits aren't the main point right now.

Raymond Rodriguez40 said:What kind of testing method did you actually use?

What’s the maximum we can hit at 333MHz versus 500MHz?
Don't just go around claiming that running at 333 MHz with 0-0-0-0 latencies is going to outperform 3-4-4-10 at 500 MHz. Realistically, you can't just make those kinds of claims without looking at the actual math.

That’s just not true. Even if you run the AMD setup in dual Channel at 333 MHz, you're looking at a measly 2700 MB/s under perfect conditions, regardless of what the latencies are doing. If you drop down to 200 MHz, even with the worst possible settings, the bandwidth actually ends up being higher than that, even in single Channel mode.
What kind of measurements are you even talking about? Mathematically speaking, if it's running at a higher clock speed, it’s obviously faster.

Here’s what Kovi from PCEkspert had to say:

CAS, RAS, RAS-to-CAS, Row precharge delay... whether you're shopping for new RAM or trying to squeeze more performance out of what you already have, you’re going to run into these terms. Just a heads-up: some motherboards simply don't allow you to tweak these settings manually in the BIOS. If that's your situation, I'm sorry, but you might just need to upgrade to a newer system—those older machines are basically relics at this point.

When you look at how data actually moves through a system, there are three heavy hitters involved: the CPU, the chipset (specifically the NorthBridge), and your system RAM. Most of the time, your total throughput is going to be bottlenecked by your memory bandwidth. So, if you’re under the impression that the processor is the only thing that matters, you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter if you have a 3200+ speed rating; it won't feel any faster than a 1700+ if you're starving the system of memory. I mean, common sense tells us you can't run Windows XP on a machine with only 64 MB of RAM—well, maybe you technically could, but it would be an absolute nightmare of stuttering and lag. And since nobody is making 64 MB DDR sticks anymore, let's say you try it with 128 MB DDR instead. Sure, Windows XP might boot up, but the performance is going to be painfully slow regardless of how beefy your processor is.

Nowadays, we have Dual Channel memory (Double Data Rate, or DDR), but you can't just plug it in and expect magic—you need a motherboard that actually supports that mode. It all comes down to which slots you decide to pop those sticks into, so definitely check your motherboard manual first. I won't bore you with all the technical minutiae here, but just make sure you follow the layout instructions.

Memory can run in either synchronous or asynchronous mode. But what’s actually the difference? Basically, synchronous mode is when the ratio between the system bus (FSB) and the memory clock is...
Keep your memory frequencies at a 1:1 ratio. If you're running an nForce2 motherboard, that’s definitely the sweet spot. Whatever you do, don't try to switch to asynchronous mode—you'll end up incredibly disappointed with the performance drop. I highly recommend digging into an "All About Overclocking" guide to figure out your maximum FSB; it’s a lifesaver unless you've already mastered the art. From there, our goal is to find that perfect balance between FSB and timings. Just keep in mind that the highest possible FSB isn't always the winner; in my experience, hitting the absolute limit actually hurts performance.

My max FSB hits 235 MHz, but honestly, my performance actually drops off compared to running at 225 MHz. You’re probably wondering why—it all comes down to the timings. Some people will swear that the FSB speed is the only thing that matters, but I don't see it that way. Sure, there might be specific scenarios where that's true, but it's definitely not a universal rule. In reality, you're always looking for that sweet spot.

I'm not sure if everyone here is familiar with this, but there's actually such a thing as chipset latency. Most of the time you'll see it set to 1T, though sometimes it's 2T. It’s a bit of a technical rabbit hole, so some of the stuff I’m about to dive into later might sound like gibberish to some of you.

Let's just assume everyone is running 1T. Honestly, that doesn't even matter much when you're struggling to dial in the tRAS—which is usually the biggest headache anyway. But then again, if you're one of those hardcore overclockers who obsesses over every little detail, maybe you'll want to mess with it.
It's getting in the way.

The tCK is going to depend on the chipset latency, but let's just try to ignore that for now.

FORMULA:
The formula for period is T = 1/f.

If we take 200 MHz as our example, then T equals 1 divided by 200, which gives us 5ns.

RAS-to-CAS Delay - t(RCD)

It’s usually set to 2T—meaning you're looking at 10 ns based on a 200 MHz FSB (using the formula t(RCD)=2T/200 MHz = 10 ns).

Try to set this value as low as you can possibly go. On most motherboards, the default settings usually sit at (2T, 3T, or 4T).

CAS Latency—better known just as CL—is basically the delay between when your memory controller tells the RAM to grab something and when that data actually starts flowing. Think of it like the "reaction time" of your memory modules. When you're looking at specs, a lower CL number is generally better because it means the latency is shorter. However, it’s not the only thing that matters. You have to look at the whole picture: the clock speed, the voltage, and how stable the system stays under load. It's easy to get caught up chasing the lowest possible latency, but if you push it too hard, you'll just end up with a blue screen instead of a faster PC. If you're planning on overclocking, keep an eye on those timings. Finding that sweet spot where you get snappy performance without crashing your system during a heavy Prime95 run is the ultimate goal.

CL is basically the relationship between tCAC and tCK.
CL = tCAC / tCK (or tCLK)

Basically, tCK stays pretty much constant across the board—on most motherboards, we're looking at 1T (meaning tCK = 1/200MHz = 5ns).
You can calculate the tCAC like this: tCAC = tCK * CL. In this case, that’s 5ns * 2, which gives you 10ns, or basically 2T.

I know all this can feel pretty overwhelming, but if you just take a second to look closely and cross-reference everything with your BIOS, it’s actually not that hard to wrap your head around.
Basically, just look at your current settings to see if your CL is set to 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0. You don't actually have to do the math yourself, but here is
an example of how you would calculate everything...

If your RAM can handle it, I’d suggest setting the CL to 2.0. Of course, you'll need to test it—you might even need to bump the voltage up to 2.7 V or slightly lower (depending on what your memory is rated for and how much it can take). If the system won't boot with a specific CL, just back it off to the next highest setting (or whatever stays stable).

Regarding Row Active Delay (tRAS) and Row Cycle Time (tRC):

tRC = min (t(RAS) + t(RP))

If you set the tRAS too high, you're just adding unnecessary latency. On the flip side, if it's too low, the cycles won't complete properly, which can lead to data loss, various instabilities, and other headaches.

The "Golden Formula" for minimum t(RAS) is: min t(RAS) = t(RCD) + CAS + 2 periods
(For my setup, where t(RCD) = 2 and CAS = 2.0, that makes the minimum tRAS = 6)

Recommended Memory Settings:

My advice is to keep those timings as low as possible—meaning CAS Latency, RAS-to-CAS Delay, and RAS Precharge should all be minimized, provided your memory can actually handle it. The only way to know if your RAM is running correctly is to stress test it. There are tons of benchmarking tools and programs out there, many of which are free, and you can find most of them right here:

http://www.2crowded.com/forum/viewf...ed183354b478434

I also highly recommend running a stability test for a full 24 hours just to be sure your system is rock solid. Also, make sure to
check performance within the actual programs and games you play regularly.

So, regarding t(RAS):

min t(RAS) = t(RCD) + CAS + 2T (where CAS is essentially tCAC)
You can calculate tRC as: tRC = min( t(RAS) + t(RP) )
And max t(RAS) = t(RC) - t(RP)

Important Note:

If you have your CAS, RAS-to-CAS, and RAS-Precharge set to 2-2-2, then:

min(tRAS) >= 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
Since tRC is roughly 55 ns or 11T for DR400 memory (using tRC = min(tRAS + tRP)), then:
max t(RAS)
Here’s a quick breakdown of the math:

Since this stuff can get pretty confusing, let me break it down for you:
1.) 2.0-2-2 at 200MHz ->
With CL = 2.0, t(RCD) = 2, and t(RP) = 2:

tCK = 1/200MHz = 5ns,
tCAC = tCK * CL = 5ns * 2.0 = 10 ns = 2T,
This is just verifying that CL = tCAC / tCK = 2T / 1T = 10ns / 5ns = 2.0
min t(RAS) = t(RCD) + CL + 2T = 2 + 2.0 + 2 = 6
tRC = min (t(RAS) + t(RP)) = 6 + 2 = 8 T, or (8 * 5 = 40ns)

2.) 2.0-2-2 at 220MHz ->
With CL = 2.0, t(RCD) = 2, and t(RP) = 2:

tCK = 1/220MHz = 4.545454....ns,
tCAC = tCK * CL = 4.545454... * 2.0 = 9.0909...ns = 2T,
min t(RAS) = t(RCD) + CL + 2T = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
tRC = min (t(RAS) + t(RP)) = 6 + 2 = 8 T, or (8 * 4.54 = 36.36363636.. ns)

3.) 2.5-3-3 at 200MHz ->
With CL = 2.5, t(RCD) = 3, and t(RP) = 3:

tCK = 1/200MHz = 5 ns,
tCAC = tCK * CL = 5 * 2.5 = 12.5 ns = 2.5T,
min t(RAS) = t(RCD) + CL + 2T = 3 + 2.5 + 2 = 7.5 (so, 8)
tRC = min (t(RAS) + t(RP)) = 8 + 3 = 11 T, or (11 * 5 = 55 ns)

Depending on your tRC and tCK values, that upper limit for tRAS will fluctuate.

I should point out that calculating tRAS is probably the most critical part, since everything else usually stays pretty low—typically 2.0-2-2, 2.5-3-3, or 3.0-3-3, etc.

Adjusting these settings should theoretically boost your bandwidth and overall performance; for instance, an 8 should be better than a 4 in a 2.0-2-2 setup. In theory, there should be proof for that. However, after testing a ton of different configurations, I honestly haven't seen any significant difference on my own rig. Here are all my tests and graphs—the maximum value is highlighted in red in the table. It shows that 4-2-2-2.0 was actually the sweet spot for my specific hardware (motherboard, RAM, etc.), which just proves you really need to test every single setting with various benchmarks... !
Tests available at: http://www.2crowded.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1157#1157

Mentioning this article (for the slow learners):
http://webraft.its.unimelb.edu.au/1...ings/index.html (shoutout to MasterFlow)

Hope this helps you out. Enjoy, Kovi!

redcrane28 said:So, I figured things out on my own, and honestly, not even through this forum. I mean, seriously—I announce in TWO different threads that I’m driving myself to Vienna for the concert, and suddenly some random user reaches out to me? Someone who barely even posts about music and probably wouldn't even show up to the show if they had a ride. Meanwhile, I can see plenty of people here who were definitely looking for a lift. I must have some incredibly "intimidating" online persona or something.

LOL👋

We would've hitched a ride with you, redcrane28, but we could only manage to snag some postcards instead :O See ya there!
P.s. You definitely don't have an "intimidating" forum personality ;*

I have an extra ticket that includes bus fare—it leaves from near the Target at 4 PM.
$103.. coming from Integral.
Give me a call on my cell! 555-019-8801
P.S. "Don't bother me with anything sexual!" 🙂)))

Man, we’ve been totally stranded without a ride for two days now! If there’s any kind soul out there willing to pick us up—whether it’s in a car, a truck, a van, a plane, a boat, or even just a moped—we would be incredibly grateful. We are more than happy to cover all travel expenses... with actual cash!!!

Or... if anyone happens to have an extra ticket lying around, we’d also be super thankful, because then at least our transport would be guaranteed!

I also struggle with really low blood pressure, but mostly just during my PMS window.
Does anyone know if there’s any advice out there on how to handle this?
(My doctor basically told me that medication isn't much help and that I should just start working out more. Like, hello?? I am definitely not a fitness enthusiast! 😁)
Are there any "old school" home remedies or anything else that actually works?

Angela Green70 said:I read somewhere that they’ve developed this "revolutionary" ointment over in Mexico, and it should be hitting pharmacies pretty soon. I’ll definitely look into it and try it out, then let you know how it goes. I deal with parapsoriasis myself—it doesn't flare up constantly, but when it does, the symptoms can get pretty rough. Whenever my skin acts up, I take some clay, and it really helps soothe everything down. You should give it a shot; clay is generally great for you anyway, so it shouldn't hurt.

Here is the contact info for the gentleman I mentioned.
Give him a call—he has been a total lifesaver for me and many others, and I honestly can't thank him enough!

Herbalist
George Rangelov
spend faucet 11 18 320 Dimitrovgrad
18 320 Dimitrovgrad

Tel: +1 10/ 361 841
Cell: +1 64 / 136 23 25

Specializing in treatments for:
VITILIGO
PSORIASIS
ECZEMA
SEBORRHEA
DANDRUFF
ROSACEA
BROWN SPOTS

He actually CURES all of these conditions!!!

P.S. Sorry, doctors, but sometimes there's someone more intuitive than you out there! 🙂

Is anyone coming from Cleveland? I’m honestly not looking forward the train ride.

Oh man, FA shower gel? Absolutely not! Don't even let a single drop touch your face—you'll end up with open sores immediately!

Yeah, I think you’re onto something. The redness is hitting me right where my jeans button up, and since I'm basically living in denim all day... it's a total nightmare.

Hey everyone!

So, I’ve got a bit of a situation going on. Every few weeks, this weird rash pops up. Sometimes it’s on my hand—like right above the wrist—sometimes it’s on my neck, but every single time, without fail, it shows up on my stomach, mostly around my belly button. I went to see a doctor, and they told me it’s just a reaction to heat and my clothes. Seriously? I only wear high-quality cotton underwear; that’s huge for me, and I’m super careful about what I put on my body. How could it be a reaction to my clothes? Anyway, they prescribed all sorts of creams and ointments, but nothing actually worked. It seems to just come and go on its own. Those few days when it flares up, the itching is absolutely unbearable. I try to leave it alone, but sometimes it gets so bad I can't help myself, and it even bleeds a little. These tiny little bumps appear too, and it's driving me crazy! It’s gone for now, and I have no idea when it'll flare up again, but my bigger issue is the redness left behind on my stomach, specifically around my navel. I don't know how to describe it—it looks like a nasty dark scar. The skin there still looks irritated, though it doesn't itch anymore. My main problem is that it’s visible. Like, if I wear a swimsuit, I feel really self-conscious about changing. It’s probably not massive, maybe only 2 or 3 cm, but it stands out from the rest of my skin, and until it fades, it's pretty noticeable. I have a trip to the beach coming up soon and I have no clue what to do. Help!

Kate Diaz said:Unfortunately, what you’re saying here just isn't true. It looks to me like you've cobbled together bits of info from legal regulations, some actual physicists, and then tossed in some alternative theories, resulting in one giant mess. While you bring up a few valid points, you're making some pretty bad mistakes elsewhere and mixing up fundamental concepts and principles.

Melatonin is a vital hormone for our immune system, released while we sleep. Poor sleep leads to a deficiency in it, which can increase the risk of developing malignant diseases.

Title: Melatonin suppression by static and extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: relationship to the reported increased incidence of cancer.

Author(s): Reiter RJ

Address: Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio 78284, USA.

Source: Review of Environmental Health 10(3-4):171-86

Abstract: There have been reports of increased cancer incidence in people living or working in environments where they are exposed to higher-than-normal artificial electromagnetic fields. Scientific Finding: One of the most uniform changes associated with the exposure of animals to either pulsed static geomagnetic fields or to sinusoidal ELF waves has been a reduction in high night-time levels of melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone produced primarily at night in the pineal gland, a small organ located near the center of the human brain. This high nocturnal production of melatonin results in elevated blood melatonin levels during the night as well. Scientific Finding: The exposure of humans or animals to light (visible electromagnetic radiation) at night rapidly depresses pineal melatonin production and blood melatonin levels. Similarly, Scientific Finding: The exposure of animals to various pulsed static and ELF waves also reduces melatonin levels. Melatonin acts as a powerful oncostatic agent, preventing both the initiation and promotion of cancer. Any factor that reduces melatonin levels at night increases the vulnerability of cells to being altered by carcinogenic agents. Therefore, if artificial electric FIELDS exposure does indeed increase cancer rates in humans, a logical mechanism could involve the reduction of melatonin caused by such exposure.

Index Terms:
Electromagnetic Fields [adverse effects]
Melatonin [metabolism]
Minor Indexes:
Circadian Rhythm
Incidence
Melatonin [physiology]
Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced [epidemiology]
Reagent Names:
73-31-4 (Melatonin)

Kate Diaz said:Honestly, what you're saying just isn't true. It feels like you've taken a little bit of info from legal regulations, a little from actual physicists, and a little from alternative sources, and mashed them all together into one big, confusing mess.

Since so many of you seem to think non-ionizing radiation belongs in the realm of pseudoscience rather than actual science, just take a look at the peer-reviewed research. That should clear up any confusion about whether this is "made up" or not.

SESSION 1: PULSED HV RESEARCH & APPLICATION
INTRACELLULAR EFFECTS DUE TO EXTREMELY
LARGE, SUBMICROSECOND ELECTRIC FIELD
PULSES: THEORY AND MODELING. J.C. Weaver, D.
A. Stewart, * Z. Vasilkoski * and T. R. Gowrishankar * .
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
1-2 HUMAN GENE EXPRESSION IN RESPONSE TO
NANOSECOND PULSED ELECTRIC FIELDS. C.C
Tseng*1 , Z-M. Wang*1 , D.S. Johnson*1 , S.J. Beebe*2 , and
K.H. Schoenbach*3 . 1 Purdue University Calumet, Hammond,
Indiana 46323, USA; 2 Eastern Virginia Medical School,
Norfolk, VA 23510, USA; 3 Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
VA 23510, USA.
1-3DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF NANOSECOND PULSED
ELECTRIC FIELDS ON HUMAN CELL SIGNAL
TRANSDUCTION AND FUNCTION. SJ Beebe*1,2,4 , C
Tseng 3 , PF Blackmore*2 , J White*1 , E Hall*1 , and KH
Schoenbach*4 1 Center for Pediatric Research, Eastern Virginia Medical
School, Norfolk VA 23510; 2 Department of Physiological Sciences,
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, 23501; 3 Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana 46323; 4 Center for Bioelectrics Old Dominion University and Eastern
Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, 23510

SESSION 2: EPIDEMIOLOGY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RF EXPOSURE FROM MOBILE PHONES IN DIFFERENT
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS. J.J. Morrissey, M.
Kanda. Motorola Florida Research Labs, 8000 West Sunrise
Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA 33322.
2-2 EFFECT OF GSM CELLULAR PHONES ON HUMAN
HEARING: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND
PRELIMINARY RESULTS. S. L. Bell*1 , N. Thomas * 1 ,
M. Parazzini*2 , G. Thuroczy 3 , M. E. Lutman*1 , P.
Ravazzani 2 . 1 Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, Southampton, UK; 2 Institute of
CNR Biomedical Engineering, 20133 Milan, Italy; 3 National
Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Department of Non-Ionizing
Radiation, 122 Budapest, Anna u.5, Canada.
2-3 METHODS FOR ASSESSING OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURES TO ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS FOR THE INTERPHONE STUDY OF
MOBILE PHONES AND CANCERS OF THE
HEAD. J.D. Bowman 1 , D.L. Conover 1 , S. Mann 2 *, D.
McLean*, L. Nadon 3 *, P. Vecchia 4 *, I. Deltour*, E.
Cardis*. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert
Thomas, 69008 Lyon, France. 1 National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2 National Radiological
Protection Board, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ, UK. 3 INRS—
Armand Frappier Institute, Laval de Rapides, Quebec, Canada. 4 National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
2-4 IMPROVING RADIOFREQUENCY EX- POSURE
ASSESSMENT IN EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF
MOBILE PHONE USERS: AN OVERVIEW OF
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY DATA.
M. A. Kelsh 1 , A.R. Sheppard 2 , N. Kuster 3 , M. Shum*1 , J
Fröhlich 3 , M. McNeeley*1 . 1 Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park,
CA, USA; 2 Asher Sheppard Consulting, Redlands, CA,
USA; 3 Information Tech in Society (IT'IS) Zurich,
Switzerland.
2-5 FEASIBILITY OF FUTURE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
STUDIES ON POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS OF
MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS. G. G. Neubauer 1 ,
M. Röösli 2 , M. Feychting 3 , Y. Hammerius 4 , L. Kheifets 5 ,
N. Kuster 6 , J. Schüz 7 , J. Wiart 8 . 1 Seibersdorf research,
Bern, Switzerland, 2 Karolinska Institutet,
Sweden, 4 Chalmers Univ, Sweden, 5 UCLA, USA, 6 IT IS
Switzerland, 7 Univ of Mainz, Germany, 8 France telecom
research center, France.
2-6 A FRESH APPROACH TO RISK EVALUATION AND
MANAGING RADIO FREQUENCY
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE
HEALTH IMPACTS USING NEURO-FUZZY
NETWORKS. O.P. Molchanova. Dept of
General Hygiene & Basics of Ecology, M.I. Pirogov
Vinnytsya Nat’l Med Univ, Vinnytsya, 21018, Ukraine.

SESSION 1: PULSED HV RESEARCH & APPLICATION
1-4 HOW CELLS SURVIVE FOLLOWING EXPOSURE
TO INTENSE, ULTRA-SHORT
ELECTRICAL PULSES. A. Andrei Pakhomov 1,3 ,
Kerfoot Walker III 1 , Juergen Kolb 3 , Karl Schoenbach 3 , 2 Bruce Stuck, and Michael Murphy 4 . 1 McKesson
BioServices Corporation, 1,2 US Army Med Res
Detachment, Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX, USA; 3 Center for Bioelectrics, Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk,
VA, USA; 4 Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, Human
Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Res Lab, Brooks
City-Base, San Antonio, TX, USA.
1-5 ULTRA-WIDEBAND ELECTROMAGNETIC
RADIATION (UWB EMR) EXPOSURE AND
SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION PATHWAY ACTIVATION.
M. Natarajan 1 , B.K. Nayak 1 *, S.P. Mathur 2 ,
C. Galindo 1 *, M.L. Meltz 1 . 1 Dept of Radiation Oncology,
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 2 McKesson BioServices, US Army Med Res Detachment,
Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX 78235 USA.
1-6 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF BRIEF {1-5 SECOND}
HEAT EXPOSURE {+ 15°C} FROM 95 GHZ
RADIATION ON DNA REPAIR. J.L. Roti Roti, J.
Mueller*, M. Xu*, E. Moros. Radiation Oncology Dept,
Washington Univ School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
63108 USA.

SESSION 3: EMF THERAPIES
3-1 LOW-FIELD MAGNETIC STIMULATION: ANTI-DEPRESSANT
RESULTS USING MRI-STRENGTH
FIELDS. M. L. Rohan*, W. A. Carlezon Jr.*, B. M
Cohen* , P. F. Renshaw*. Dept of Psychiatry, Harvard
Medical School and McLean Hospital. Belmont,
MA 02478 USA.
3-2 STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS MODIFYING THE
EFFICACY OF CHEMOTHERAPY IN
TREATING HUMAN CANCER. J. R.
Salvatore, J. Harrington, T. Kummet. Division of
Hematology/Oncology, Hayden VA Medical Center,
Phoenix, AZ 85012 USA.

SESSION 4: IN VIVO STUDIES
4-1 THERMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS OF
SEATED HUMAN VOLUNTEERS TO FULL-BODY
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EXPOSURE AT
220 MHZ. E.R. Adair 1 , D.W. Blick 2 , S.J. Allen 3 , K.S.
Mylacraine 3 , J.M. Ziriax 4 , D.M. Scholl 5 . 1 Air Force Senior
Scientist Emeritus, Hamden, CT 06517; 2 Independent
Consultant, San Antonio, TX 78218; 3 Advanced Eng
Information Sys, a General Dynamics Co., Brooks City-Base,
TX 78235; 4 Naval Hlth Cntr Detachment, Brooks
City-Base, TX 78235; 5 AFRL/HEDR, Brooks City-Base,
TX 78235 USA.