[qmmmur]

You have a base level of resistance determined by your genes. When you get burned you tan and that burn is a function of time spent out in sun multipliednby that base protection. Tanning is our bodies response to the damage done by this as a form of preventing more damage. The damage however is accumulative.

[taeric]

This makes since sense, but still feels too simplified. I used to spend many hours outside and basically developed a skin type that was easily two types higher than I have normally. When this happened, I found I could definitely do longer without a hat or other sun shades with no negative impact.

Fast forward a few years and I'm back to where the first few days mowing the yard will see me get burned. Give it a few weeks and I can go longer without a hat.

[qmmmur]

You repeatedly damaged your skin to maintain the tan.

[taeric]

I get that. But some damage is different from other damage. Getting callouses is similar to getting blisters. But one is much worse for you. (With the other being somewhat beneficial...)

So my question is how bad is it, really? Straw man arguments of folks being ridiculously tanned from tanning beds aside, is there much trustable discussion over mild tans?

Edit: Probably better asked in terms of my blister analogy. Is there benefit to getting tanned similar to building up callouses? Or is it purely cosmetic?

[qmmmur]

Getting burned once in a two year time span triples your risk of developing melanoma compared to not getting burned at all. That base level obviously depends on your genetics.

[taeric]

That is getting burned. Is tanning:burning the same as callouses:blisters?

I suppose I am assuming callouses aren't really bad for you? Is that not true?

[qmmmur]

You don't have to be visibly horribly red to be burned. Even just a slight redenning of the skin or it being hot after being in the sun for a while can constitute a burn.