The phrase "appreciable harm" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you want to indicate that the harm caused is significant enough to be noticed or measured.
Example: "The chemical spill resulted in appreciable harm to the local ecosystem, affecting wildlife and plant life."
Alternatives: "significant damage" or "notable harm".
The Joint Water Committee (outlined in Article VII below) will survey existing uses for documentation and prevention of appreciable harm.
Plaintiff argues that the statute should not begin to run until the release of Rocky IV since he suffered no appreciable harm until that time.
And exposure to Zn is three orders of magnitude apparently incapable of causing appreciable harm in relation to Cd. Zn reductor is, therefore, environmentally friendly, and environmentally friendly chemical analysis is geared towards achieving sustainable development (Grudpan et al. 2011).
There is something about that word....The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children..
Judge Treu applied only the first part, asking if the challenged statutes did real and appreciable harm (for a further discussion of these legal issues, see the discussion below, in response to the next question).
I'm a lousy handyman, but I see myself as quite good, and a house is expansive enough that I can saw and hammer and drill all over the place without doing any appreciable harm.
The Environmental Protection Agency has calculated that adults and infants can consume 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight every day over a lifetime with little appreciable risk of harm.
If the 95% CI includes appreciable benefit or harm (we suggest an RR of under 0.75 or over 1.25 as a rough guide) rating down for imprecision may be appropriate even if OIS criteria are met.
The chronic RfD represents an estimate of the amount of a chemical an individual could be exposed to daily throughout the individual's lifetime that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of harm (Winter and Francis 1997).
10 trials showing no effect and appreciable benefit or harm with restrictive transfusion strategy.
For the diagnosis of stage II prostate cancer, there was a wide confidence interval for the effect size, which included both appreciable benefit and harm and led to further downgrading for imprecision.
