Is there any proof BESIDES "Epidemiology" that CIGARETTES cause Lung Cancer?

I was reading in an article that the only proof that researchers have is by linking the statistics of people who smoke and how many of them get lung cancer, does anyone know if there is any factual proof besides Epidemiological theories...?

Yeah, i kind of wanted to know this as it is for coursework and ALSO....

The question was if they had proof over a microscope for example!

As a smoker I could fill a page defending the fact that smoking caused lung cancer but I don't have positive facts to say it doesn't, although there isn't 100% facts that says it does? My grandad died age 60 of lung cancer and never smoked, my dad had a lung removed due to lung cancer and he was a heavy smoker and recovered but 3 years later he died of bowel cancer? But to all those out there that insult smokers for our habit just stop and think of those who drive cars are putting more carcinogenic chemicals into their cars and the air from exhaust fumes?

Here is some info I Googled,
Lung cancer 'link to lack of sun'
Lack of sunlight may increase the risk of lung cancer, a study suggests.

Researchers found lung cancer rates were highest in countries furthest from the equator, where exposure to sunlight is lowest.

More lung cancer in poorer areas
People living in deprived areas of the East Midlands are two-and-a-half times more likely to get lung cancer than those in affluent areas, a report says.

Breathing in other carcinogens in the workplace, for example asbestos, can also trigger cancer. Some people seem to be genetically predisposed to developing lung cancer.

Overall tobacco smoking is estimated to be responsible for approximately 30% of cancer deaths in developed countries - How do the other 70% get lung cancer? Alcohol also causes cancers

I don't have to read anything about smoking and lung cancer. 3 of my brothers died of it. 1 a slow agonising death aged 74, one fairly quick death age 61 and the 3rd. was diagnosed and treated for sciatica for nearly 1 year, until they realised it was lung cancer. That doesn't make sense to you well, the pains he had, were similar to sciatica, and yet lung cancer had already reached the bones. He was age 54 and had stopped smoking 4+1/2 years prior. Now my 4th brother is on Oxygen day and night, and it doesn't look as though he's going to make to the end of the year. They all smoked heavily and knew the scores, but didn't stop. well not until it was too late. My last and 5th brother never smoked, age 68 and he's as fit as a 40 year old. So now why do you want statistics. this is proof. By the way I am not proud to say that I too was a smoker, but given up God willing early enough not to having to go down that road. I also have a sister, never smoked age 78 and again very healthy. I hope I haven't bored you with my family history, but if you are a smoker, give it up.

try reading this, it's quite interesting:- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...

Having lost my husband a fortnight ago (at the age of 58) to this horrible disease I don't care what the cause is......
As 99% of people who get Lung Cancer smoke though I'd say that's proof enough!

Since 90% of people with lung cancer are smokers what more proof do you need.
The cancer causing agents in smoking are well known, and cancer is always a response to chronic irritation of tissues.

There are at least 60 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

What do you consider proof? Do you have to see the cells mutate before your eyes?

Over a million smokers a year die of lung cancer.