4 ms·

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 tha

by qmmmur 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  You repeatedly damaged your skin to maintain the tan.
  - taeric 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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.

by qmmmur 5y ago

taeric 5y ago

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 5y ago
You repeatedly damaged your skin to maintain the tan.
- taeric 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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.