I take it from these 'supposedly' concrete findings that funding/grants into other causes of heart attacks and other diseases are to be stopped and research discontinued. I ask this because almost every doctor/researcher/sci attributes whatever illness they are treating/researching on smoking or SHS.

I used to have a very healthy respect for scientists/doctors and researchers, but I'm afraid that respect no longer applies to the vast majority of these professions. Integrity and honesty used to be the top priority, now it's securing funding/grants from pharmacuetical companies and government but reading ones name in the newspapers to further careers appears to be the number one priority.

SHS is a baffling subject really. Why is that not one of these rabid anti smoking paragons haven't called for tobacco to be made illegal, a ban on selling it, instead they come out with issue licences to sell it, which the government will fall all over itself to comply with, more money for them.

Lucy , london,

At last a study to show the benifits to health following the smoking ban in Scotland. This is great news and fully justifies the ban. I and other non smoker now suffer a large smoke intake as we walk along the road, with all the associated and proved health problems. So come on all you MPs and ban smoking completely everywhere except in peoples homes. You know this will happen later so why not make it sooner so we nonsmokers can enjoy even better health and longer life.

John, Richmond, North Yorks

There are over 100 hospitals in Scotland but the NHS only took results from 9 of them...

Tony, Hull,

I agree with Derek James. Yes, there is a link between smoking and heart disease, but there's going to be a substantial lag between the start of the smoking ban and any improvement in cardiac health. Maybe in 20 years the ban will have made a difference, but this year's improvement is just coincidence. Anyone trying to pretend there's a link is flat-out lying.

Of particular interest is Professor Pell's interpretation of the data. He acknowledges that heart attacks are down in non-smokers too, but rather than draw the obvious conclusion that smoking has nothing to do with the reduction, he mysteriously deduces that "That can only be due to lower levels of passive smoke". To me, this suggests that he'd made up his mind what the conclusions would be before he even looked at the data.

Neil Turner, London / Cape Town, UK / South Africa

This is the worst, and most biased scientific report I have ever read, and Profesor Pell knows this perfectly well. One assumes therefore that he must be an anti-smoking extremeist. Perhaps, before preparing this report he should have read the latest unbiased, and detailed report on the effects of passive smoking!

Desmond, Barnstaple, Devon

yeah right ho, yet all of the science in support of so called passive smoking was said to be junk as the no smoking bill passed through the house of lords. incidentially smoking is said to kill roughly 30,000 people a year. incompenent docs and nurses kill 40,000 people a year-perhaps we should ban them to!!!

junk science, uk,

Could it be that, because of the smoking ban, there are less visits to pubs, so drinking levels are down. Alcohol and heart problems are supposedly related, so maybe less booze equals less heart attacks? Were the alcohol consumption figures included in these statistics?

Alan Nicholls, Nottingham, England

Derek James:
I assume you have hard evidence to back your claim that it's too short a time to see an effect, especially in light of published evidence that the endothelial and nitric oxide effects of second-hand smoke are much more acute than directly inhaled smoke; also that platelet stickiness is a huge part of tobacco smoke-related acute coronary disease.
People who support smoking should just come out and say that they want smoking to continue in preference to a regard for their own or other's health. Just don't try to discredit evidence because there's 'no way this can be right'.

Avril, Edinburgh,

The higher incidence of heart attacks in cold weather has been well documented. The study by Pell covered ten months (why ten months?) which means that winter (i.e. colder) conditions are under-represented post-ban.

Every study that deals with statistics should present confidence levels (e.g. 90 %) and statements such as 'reliable' are political not scientific. The above studies seem light in providing any levels of statistical significance. That apart, any statistical study is significant only if: the data can be demonstrated to be representative (i.e. all studies and data are represented and the significant ones are not cherry-picked); alternative variables are taken into account (e.g. weather) and most importantly, there is a scientific reason behind the observation.

The problem with sensationalising speculative results is that it distracts from identifying the real causes of disease. It might be good news for the political paymasters, but it is irresponsible.

Ken Nicholson, Swindon, UK

If this study is true then should we not completely ban cigarette manufacturing in this country?

The study has proven that the chemicals added to tobacco have an almost immediate effect on the health of the smoker and also the non smoker so why has the government not issues an immediate ban on health grounds.

Alternatively if you take the statistics and interpolate them for China where smoking is heavy and endemic then surely with 1.3 billion people heart attacked should be fairly common on the street.

Remember statistics are just that and there could be a lot of other factors like people who recently give up exercise more, eat different foods as they can taste the difference.

joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Blimey!

No one dared to claim that smokers giving up would reduce their risks by this much!

What unbelievable rubbish! (Not the figures, but the conclusion)

"When the smoke ban takes effect in England, we'll all be immortal" says Professor

Nigel Hall, Cardiff,

Rubbish propaganda. In such a short time no way can this be right.

Derek James, Stourbridge,