"biological harm" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It can be used when referring to any negative impact or damage caused to living organisms or their systems, such as through exposure to toxins, pollutants, or diseases. Example: The use of pesticides has been linked to widespread biological harm in bee populations, leading to a decline in pollination and threatening the health of entire ecosystems.
While there is a lack of well-designed studies investigating the post-relapse treatment outcome, available evidence gives sufficient cause for concern that, in addition to the considerable psychosocial risks, an additional risk of biological harm may be associated with relapse.
You say the standard is biological harm, which I think quite often the public doesn't understand.
The hypothesis in modern radiation protection is that any dose of radiation has the potential to cause biological harm.
What is happening now will impoverish India, a country so rich in resources and intellect but no society can sustain itself against biological harm to very young children; especially when it is invisible.
Specific types of harms mentioned included later-life biological harms, such as cancers (n = 72, 17.1 %), and behavioural harms, such as associations with depression (n = 64, 15.2 %).
Powerful biological damage defence responses are sometimes excluded from specific locations as a mechanism of attenuating responses that might do more harm than good.
Normal and pathological processes entail the production of oxidative substances that can damage biological molecules and harm physiological functions.
But in actual use, biological agents often harm less than expected, partly for the simple evolutionary reason that people have immune systems that fight pathogens.
A new center researching bioterrorism and agroterrorism, the use of biological agents to harm the nation's food supply, would almost certainly have Level 4 status, the highest security designation for labs.
The Department of Homeland Security, which took control of the island in 2003, is conducting a yearlong study to determine whether the lab at Plum Island has a future as a $450 million center to defend against the use of biological agents to harm the nation's food supply (also referred to as agroterrorism) or perhaps no future at all.
In light of this failure to satisfy deontological requirements, let us consider the utilitarian implications of cloning mammoths and the accompanying harms: societal harm, biological costs, and harm to the environment.
