[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.

[taeric]

Then let me shift this. If you moved to a location that was completely isolated from the sun, would that cause damage?

That is, I've been assuming there is a spectrum from no exposure to too much. Just as it is with plants. Now, plants obviously need some exposure for photosynthesis. People don't have that, but are there benefits to some base level exposure?

And again, I get the point on burning. And again, that is why I bring up blistering. Something that is obvious in it being bad damage for your skin. Whereas moderate dosing the same behavior could instead give you a callous, which I have never heard called out as bad damage to your skin, though it seems it is a form of damage.