Last night a neighbor was telling me about his sister's pool in Kentucky from where he and his wife had just returned. He said she went from spending tons of $$$$ on chemicals to spending very little (about what we spend with the BBB method) by use of something called a FlowTron, which is an ionizer, that can be bought for around $200. He said she uses that and a small amount of chlorine pucks (stabilized chlorine). She is absolutely sure her pool has never been better and she's saving so much money compared to before, she's thinking of starting to sell the ionizer.
The skeptic in me says (1) if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't; and (2) if it worked that well we'd be promoting this contraption along with the BBB method. I pointed out that the oodles of money she was spending before was unnecessary in the first instance, and so it may only seem that this FlowTron thing is doing all the work, when in actuality the chlorine's doing it. The neighbor is a defensive/know it all sort of guy (despite knowing nothing about pools) and got instantly mad at me and walked away. This is the same guy who, whenever the chance, says things to me like "Yeah, I hear all pools do is suck you dry" (but we can bet he doesn't say that to his sister). My response is always that it's like any type of recreational activity that people choose to pay for, such as scuba diving, owning a boat, caving across the country, stock car racing, and the list goes on and on.
Personality issues aside, can anyone contribute to this argument, one way or another? If the FlowTron thing works so well and brings chlorine usage way down, why don't we all have one?
Bookmarks