Sentences with phrase «correcting human effects»

Not exact matches

First, the destabilizing effects of VX - 770 on the corrected CFTR protein might be less robust in the human body than were the effects seen in lab tests using human lung cells.

* Correction, 18 September, 1:03 p.m.: This item has been corrected to reflect that caffeine's effects on the human circadian clock were unknown.

If we equate de facto ketogenic diets with high - protein diets (which is not always correct) then the risks proposed by critics of this type of dietary approach are essentially those of possible kidney damage due to high levels of nitrogen excretion during protein metabolism, which can cause an increase in glomerular pressure and hyperfiltration.12 There is not wide agreement between studies; however, some infer the possibility of renal damage from animal studies, 99, 100 whereas others, looking at both animal models, meta - analyses and human studies, propose that even high levels of protein in the diet do not damage renal function.101, 102 In subjects with intact renal function, higher dietary protein levels caused some functional and morphological adaptations without negative effects.103 There may actually be renal - related effects, but on blood pressure rather than morphological damage.

Only some human anti-histamines are suitable for dogs Piriton can be used but it is always better to ask your local vet first as it might not be the best solution, you need to know the correct dosage, side effects to watch out for and it can be dangerous when combines with certain other drugs.

How do you separate the effects of human causation from whatever self - correcting mechanism occurs in nature over time?

If my guesses (hypothesises) are correct then we are about to go into a very long «Global Cooling» effect that will cause a major issue in our environment and the current ideas and computer models will lead us into a very wrong direction and cause serious damage to both agricultural and human development.

KR asks the correct question finally, as to what we would do if human CO2 production was the cause of significant global warming with significant adverse effects.

Curry has the correct approach: the issue is to determine the extent of human effect.

In a long comment at Wotts, Curtis says, in effect, that the descriptions in Table 2 should be all but ignored, that only the titles of the various levels really matter and that these titles clearly say (to people of goodwill armed with the correct conversational implicature) that what is being judged is how strongly the various abstracts make the * same * endorsement (human influence > 50 %), not * which * endorsement they make (human influence > 50 %; some human influence; etc.).