N&O Index Card
Subject/Name: Super Collider
Article(s) Referenced In:
- (SUPER) COLLIDER's effect on water, land worries some environmentalists - Mr 29 88 1
- (SUPER) COLLIDER's radiation risk debated - Mr 29 88 8A
- Landowners fault state handling (on SUPER COLLIDER) - Mr 29 88 8A
- Community ambience fills Fermilab - Mr 31 88 8T
- Durham freeway key in state road plans for collider traffic - Mr 31 88 2C
- Editorial: Questions in collision - Ap 3 88 6D
- Super collider panel inspects Arizona site; N.C. visit set - Ap 21 88 16C
- House panel rejects state collider funds - Ap 30 88 10B
- Despite recommendation, federal funding for collider in doubt - Ma 6 88 24C
- Martin names advisory panel for collider - Ma 10 88 18C
- UNC board endorses efforts to lure collider - Ma 14 88 8B
- Super collider promise leaves Guard unmoved - Ma 26 88 3C
- Spending for collider at limit, Ramsey says - Jn 2 88 1C
- Costly collider land purchase can wait, project director (Dunn) says - Jn 4 88 3C
- Editorial: Ramsey cautious on collider - Jn 5 88 6D
- Lobbyists say odds are good N.C. could get collider - Jn 8 88 2C
- Panel approves $90,000 emergency aid for collider - Jn 8 88 18C
- N.C. reportedly 1 of 3 collider sites - Jn 15 88 10A
- Energy Department denies report of supercollider finalists - Jn 16 88 16C
- N.C. paying lobbyist $20,000 a month, more than other states, to lure collider - Jn 21 88 18C
- Martin asserts collider lobbyists doing their job - Jn 24 88 6D
- Super collider foes set for federal visit - Jn 27 88 1C
- Federal collider team expects local opposition - Jn 28 88 2C
- Superconductor foes protest state funding - Jn 28 88 18C
- DOE official praises location of collider site - Jn 29 88 1C
- Hundreds gather to protest super collider - Jn 29 88 1C
- N.C. group meets with DOE to push super collider bid - Jy 13 88 18C
- Adjustments to ease collider's effect possible - Jy 14 88 2C
- N.C. collider bid papers to be at libraries - Jy 27 88 8A
- Scientists suggest using beam from collider to treat cancers - Jy 27 88 8A
- Collider study reports risks to environment - Au 8 88 1C
- Study (impact of super collider) moves to Oxford library - Au 8 88 16C
- Super collider land not needed right away - Au 24 88 18C
- 4,070 housing units needed for collider, study says - Au 27 88 1
- Study details collider's impact; Increase in air pollution, development in watersheds forecast - Au 28 88 25A
- N.C.'s chance to get collider called slight - Se 16 88 1C
- Questions remain over timetable for super collider - Se 21 88 7D
- N.C. could get collider, physicist (Goldberg) says - Se 23 88 3C
- Collider would bring 9,000 jobs, report says - Se 30 88 5D
- Super collider foes say right to speak at hearing denied - Se 30 88 5D
- Hearing on super collider set for Butner - Oc 3 88 2C
- Collider opponents assail draft impact study - Oc 4 88 18C
- Martin takes collider bid to Washington - Oc 6 88 29A
- Durham council members urge better preparation for collider - Oc 14 88 2C
- Collider study stirs criticism - No 3 88 1C
- Black lawmakers back Southeast collider site No 4 88 3C
- Durham report rebutted on tax impact of collider No 8 88 WA-1
- Federal officials plan to reveal site of collider No 10 88 1C
- Many happy, others bitter in collider loss No 11 88 1C
- Texas wins battle for super collider; U.S. criticizes state, local officials in rejecting N.C. - No 11 88 1
- Members of U.S. collider panel fault Martin officials in failed bid No 15 88 1
- N.C. 'Citizens Against the Collider Here' celebrate Texas' win - De 4 88 54A
- Tar Heel editors speak: A super collider solution - De 11 88 7D
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!