I've been told there's a technical difference between frostbite and frostburn.
lol yeah there is.
True frost bite is where limbs, fingers, ears, toes, feet and noses actually freeze solid. The sort of thing that Mawson in the antartic would have had to deal with. The body part is frozen and circulation ceases entirely. The cells freeze and rupture and ultimately the affected part dies and falls off or allows gangrenous infection. It was a problem in World War One with troop standing in frozen and near frozen water in the trenches over winter.
Frost burn is what we tend to see here (and what we tend to also call frost bite). Its where a rooster, for example, has his comb in very cold below zero weather and the body struggles to supply enough circulation to it to keep it from freezing. The points on the comb and some surface areas come almost frozen as a result. Some tissue is damaged but its repairable by the body. Its more aligned to a burn than true frost bite.
Obviously there is a cross over and frost burn, given the right conditions and continued exposure could turn into frost bite. Its much the same as heat exhaustion can turn into heat stroke.
Its symantics but there is a technical difference.
Here is a link with some frost bite photo on humans - not too gross or severe though. Interestingly they they dont draw a distinction between frost burn and frost bite in the way I was taught forty odd years ago. http://firstaid.about.com/od/heatcoldex ... -Pictures/