Originally Posted by gqnine44
Don't you think dupont would not recommend planting for a longer time if they felt damage was possible to newly planted trees? I am just asking because I can't imagine that dupont would want that headache and expense if newly planted trees started dying. That would really increase their Costs!
Also, around here brickman replaced all of their affected trees all over town last fall. So far no damage. I'll let know if I notice any.
Those suggesting we should be very cautious about planting as early as DuPont has suggested are those who've already seen new trees either dying or not growing. I understand DuPont having a more positive spin on this because if they did admit that we may not be able to plant and grow trees this early they would add even more ammunition to law firms seeking more compensation for victims. Its easy to see they may think some may not have any problems and others theyll just replace those if a person notices the tree is damage within 2years. But, what if the new tree does't grow normally and suffers stunted growth therefore its smaller years from now than what it should have been. That person won't be elgible for replacement.
I'd rather trust the independent scientists than DuPont. We already trusted DuPont about Imprelis, then trusted them about the resolution process only to find out they won't even place a date by which we can expect a check if we do sign.
There are some others in this thread back further that replanted then lost them. Even if i I wouldn't lose the new ones I'd rather wait until I can plant them and see them grow. But, some may not have as much damage now and therefore maybe its not in the soil as great as some of ours. Maybe they won't have a problem planting this fall.