Neat. Curious how to interpret this when you are tanned some. My understanding is that doesn't change your skin type, but you do build some resistance. That not the case?
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.
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?
I suppose I am assuming callouses aren't really bad for you? Is that not true?
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.
I would not rely on it overall tough.