Example collocations logo

Harmful in sentence

436 examples of Harmful in a sentence

Placebos may even reduce levels of stress hormones, like adrenaline, which can slow the harmful effects of an ailment.
Even if we could avoid all these harmful genetic alterations, not even our own cells could save us.
The bacteria in our guts can break down food the body can't digest, produce important nutrients, regulate the immune system, and protect against harmful germs.
Our automatic scratching response would dislodge anything harmful that's potentially lurking on our skin, like a harmful sting, a biting insect, or the tendrils of a poisonous plant.
It wasn't until the mid-20th century we realized that radium's harmful effects as a radioactive element outweighed its visual benefits.
And though most cults don't lead members to their death, they can still be harmful.
Consumer taste and prices can also have harmful effects.
Harmful practices, such as bottom trawling, can be banned altogether, and we can establish marine reserves closed to all fishing to help ecosystems restore themselves.
The idea behind this law is that selling sex is intrinsically harmful and so you're, in fact, helping sex workers by removing the option.
If prohibition is this harmful, you might ask, why it so popular?
One is that, why are some disease organisms more harmful?
How can we make the harmful organisms more mild?
And so, the theory tells us that when diarrheal disease organisms are transported by water, we expect them to be more predator-like, more harmful.
So, one way you can test is just look at all diarrheal bacteria, and see whether or not the ones that tend to be more transmitted by water, tend to be more harmful.
We could make them evolve to be not so harmful to us.
And the reason I thought this is a really great organism to look at is that we understand why it's so harmful.
It's harmful because it produces a toxin, and that toxin is released when the organism gets into our intestinal tract.
And did it evolve to be more harmful in a place like Ecuador, which has some of the least well protected?
In every case there's a lot of variation, but something about the environment the people are living in, and I think the only realistic explanation is that it's the degree of waterborne transmission, favored the harmful strains in one place, and mild strains in another.
If you've got a harmful organism, a high proportion of the people are going to be symptomatic, a high proportion of the people are going to be going to get antibiotics.
And once you get increased antibiotic resistance, the antibiotics aren't knocking out the harmful strains anymore.
And you can show, just by looking at data from literature, that vector-borne diseases are more harmful than non-vector-borne diseases.
So, if you're a harmful variant in a place where you've got mosquito-proof housing, then you're a loser.
And my personal favorite: How can we justify wiping out an entire species that we consider harmful to humans off the face of the Earth, using this technology?
The UV radiation from the sun destroys the DNA of these harmful pathogens and decontaminates the water.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin which causes cognitive and developmental disabilities and is especially harmful to growing fetuses and young children.
Together, they create a harmful stew called leachate, which can move into groundwater, soil and streams, poisoning ecosystems and harming wildlife.
Plus, there may be all sorts of other benefits: eased road congestion, decreased harmful emissions, and minimized unproductive and stressful driving time.
So the bottom line is this: biological control of harmful insects can be both more effective and very much more environmentally friendly than using insecticides, which are toxic chemicals.
We can do better than investing solely in law enforcement as a resource, because they don't give us a sense of relevancy that is at the core of why so many of us do so many harmful things in the pursuit of mattering.
BackNext