That's purely DNA damage and yeah, it's "most". But not all. So it is cumulative over time.

I mean, it's pretty clear that sun exposure damages the skin. And it's not just skin cancer but other pre-cancerous changes and just premature aging.

https://www.msdmanuals.com/home/skin-disorders/sunlight-and-...

Again basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas have roughly a 100% 5-year survival rate - so much so it's not really been calculated. But the risk of melanoma, which is the bad one (and only accounts for 1-3% of skin cancers), goes down with more exposure to the sun. And as the article says, the benefits to CV health and reduction in melanoma risk outweigh the risk associated with these very low-risk cancers.

That article isn't strictly wrong to say that exposure to sunlight is linked with melanoma, but it's linked to childhood sunburns and intermittent sunshine/sunburn. Sunburns are bad, sun is good.

> And perplexingly, outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers. Tanned people have lower rates in general.

I think it's also fair to say that exposure to the sun doesn't cause premature aging so much as not being exposed to the sun makes you look younger than you would otherwise - but of course that only helps if you're alive. Direct sun exposure reduces all-cause mortality. [1]

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251

Interesting article, but note that moderate sun exposure has a lower mortality than either "no" or "lots of" sun exposure.

Which is not surprising considering the need for sun exposure for things like vitamin D.

But I'm not sure mortality is the best measure? Maybe quality of life? Getting surgery to remove a basal cell carcinoma and having failed skin grafts (happened to my grandmother) seems like a heavy burden to cost of life not captured in mortality.

I’ve not much to add other than to say I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother! Hope she pulled through ok.

Upvoted for the kindness. Appreciate it.