N&O Index Card
Subject/Name: Phosphates
Article(s) Referenced In:
- Pro-phosphate opinion won't wash - Ja 19 84 2C
- Phosphate dust control chastised - Fe 10 84 8C
- Phosphate ban gains panel's OK - Mr 31 84 1C
- Panel supports ban on phosphates to improve water quality in lakes - Ap 13 84 1D
- Editorial: Phosphate ban needed - My 24 84 4A
- Editorial: A bad phosphate vote - Jn 1 4A
- Statewide phosphate detergent ban endorsed by municipalities' board - Jn 13 84 1C
- Phosphates (bill) - Jn 14 84 25A
- Editorial: the soapbox soaking - Jn 15 84 4A
- Under the dome: Phosphate sale ban faces tough ride - Jn 15 84 1
- Panel backs phosphate cleaner ban - Jn 20 84 1
- House passes phosphate ban by wide margin - Jn 23 84 1
- Editorial: Test on clean water - Jn 24 84 4D
- Phosphates (bill) - Jn 26 84 4C
- 4 major bills bogged down in assembly - Jn 27 84 1
- Editorial: - No starch in Senate - Jn 28 84 4A
- Phosphate ban hearing draws strong opinions - Jy 1 84 25A
- Editorial: End the Swain stall - Jy 3 84 4A
- More questions delay bill limiting phosphates - Jy 4 84 1
- Banking, phosphate bills bottled up - Jy 6 84 1
- More than budget considered in 'education session' - Jy 9 84 14C
- Supporters of phosphate ban say bill will have better chance in
- February - Jy 15 84 32A
- Editorial: Swain's explanation cloudy - Jy 18 84 4A
- Phosphate detergent ban suggested again by panel - No 28 84 1
- Editorial: - No time to tread water - De 1 84 4A
See a typo in our data? Let us know and we'll fix it.
Places you might find this article:
Search For This Topic
Help us correct this text for future researchers.
Type your transcription below – don't worry about formatting. Please include the line number you are correcting.
Thank you!