Posted again because Slashdot didn't give me the opportunity to log in before posting like it used to do...

I find it ironic that those who are most critical of Dr. Wakefield seldom actually understand the claims he made. It is also puzzling to observe how many 'Wakefield has been debunked!' statements are trumpeted about studies that don't even evaluate his specific claims. To be clear, Wakefield postulated two separate but related theories regarding the MMR vaccine and autism:

1 - The MMR vaccine increases the incidence of severe gastrointestinal disorders in very young children.

2 - Severe gastrointestinal disorders in very young children (2.5yrs) increase the likelyhood that they will develop an autistic disorder.

Autism is a spectrum of symptoms, not a specific disease. We do not know what causes it, and it may well be influenced by a variety of different causes. Claiming to have discovered one possible cause does not automatically mean that every, or perhaps even most, cases were related to the identified cause. I read through the section of the NAP book that addresses the issue of MMR and autism and they completely fail to discuss the Wakefield's actual theories. In fact, they even mention to two studies (not by Wakefield) that show a link between MMR and gastrointestinal disorders (theory 1) but make no attempt to discuss or evaluate the second theory. Whatever Wakefield's failings the fact remains that his first theory has independent corroborating evidence and his second theory has never been evaluated independently. The tar-and-feathering he received will insure that the second theory will not be seriously evaluated for a very long time.

It is entirely possible that Wakefield's theory is correct for some subset, perhaps as small as 1%-5%, of the existing autistic population. Anyone who has read about autism will have encountered the stories of children who had both gastrointestinal problems and autism and improved when eating very strict diets (no dairy, gluten, bananas, etc). These cases represent a very small subset of the total population and their risk factor may well have been much higher from the MMR vaccine then the average population. The overall risk of MMR may be too small to detect in the general population but still be fairly high for the specific subgroup that has a family history of gastrointestinal issues.

What do I take from this? Well my wife and her family have a history of gastrointestinal problems. We decided that in light of the evidence that MMR increases the onset of gastrointestinal disorders in very young children that the risk was not worth taking. Instead, we had our daughter vaccinated for each of the three diseases independently when she was five (the Measles vaccine by itself has not been associated with increased gastrointestinal distorders). This was not a 'religious' response, it was a carefully-reasoned and appropriate measure based on the available evidence.

What is truly bordering on religious (and not in a good way) is the passionate and shrill denouncement of this very reasonable and evidence based theory due to the fear that it will be misunderstood by the general population. The truth is still the truth even if you put your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la I can't hear you!' at the top of your lungs when someone speaks it.

Idiot.

I am a PE and have done hundreds of RF emissions studies on wireless facilities, including rooftop installations like the one you describe. My initial thought is that twenty feet would be an unusually small distance between the antennas and your window. It may very well be much larger then that (50' or more is more likely - and would have much lower emission levels) but seems closer due to the perspective of the surrounding panoramic view. If it were truly only 20', and the building hosted antenna arrays from many wireless carriers (and FM transmitters), then there is a very slight possibility that the levels in your apartment could be near the public exposure limit. This situation is quite unlikely however. Most wireless carriers have an independent RF emissions study performed on rooftop installations that include measurements of the pre-existing antennas, so if you reached the right person and were persuasive enough you might be able to get them to share that with you (very unlikely). Another poster recommended a cheap meter. I'm not convinced of their accuracy, but you could give it a try if it worries you. Someone else mentioned low-E glass and correctly stated that it blocks a significant amount of RF energy. If you have low-e glass then even 20' away would mean your apartment is below the public exposure limit.

The FCC limit for the 2.4GHz band is on EIRP (essentially Tx output power * antenna gain), not on Tx output power alone. Adding a high-gain antenna or boosting the Tx output power can both push you over the legal limit of 100mW EIRP.