WATER bosses have admitted it is likely fluoride will not be delivered to all the areas expected under the controversial scheme planned for Hampshire, the Daily Echo can reveal.

That could mean some of the most deprived areas of Southampton, where tooth decay in children is at its worst, will not receive the dosed supplies – which was the main argument for putting fluoride in water.

It comes as chiefs at South Central Strategic Health Authority say they still do not know how much it is going to cost to build the infrastructure needed to add the chemical to tap water.

Campaigners say the revelations show all of the major arguments for fluoridation have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, and the scheme should be put back on hold immediately, or scrapped completely.

Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: “It has to be technically and economically feasible – they are the first two criteria.

All of the underpinning of their arguments has been stripped away, even if they worked in the first place.

“Dental decay is lower than they said, and now we don’t know which areas of the city are going to be fluoridated.

“That presumably changes the whole nature of the scheme.

“If it is only going to be parts of areas then we need to know what it is going to be and how that affects the cost.

“They do not know how they are going to get it into the water system. Clearly it is not as easy as the SHA has outlined.

“They are going to do something that they do not know how much is going to cost, and therefore do not know if there is going to be any economic benefit, but they are going to do it anyway.

“It beggars belief.

“What other authority could get away with saying: ‘We are going to do something, but we do not know what we are going to do’?”

SHA wrote to Southern Water in March calling for work to restart on working out how fluoride will be added to the water supplies of parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

The scheme had been on hold for two years pending the outcome of a judicial review challenge to the SHA’s decision to back the plans, but High Court judges have backed the authority.

Before the SHA board voted unanimously in February 2009 to approve the scheme, a feasibility report suggested fluoride could be added at two dosing stations – an existing water plant at Otterbourne and a new station in Rownhams.

That would see nearly 200,000 residents receive fluoridated water, including several key neighbourhoods where tooth decay is more prevalent, under schemes labelled one and seven.

Southern Water has now said it does not know if that can happen.

A senior customer relations adviser said in a letter responding to a query about dosing stations that the actual locations have “yet to be finalised”.

She said: “Depending upon the location of this dosing system it is most likely that not all the areas identified in the schemes 1 and 7 of the feasibility study will actually receive a fluoridated supply.”

An SHA spokeswoman admitted the body does not yet know where fluoridated water will be delivered, but insisted it remains convinced the scheme should go ahead.

She said: “SHA is working with Southern Water on developing an implementation plan which will be shared with key stakeholders.

“The actual location of the dosing system has yet to be finalised and that will determine the precise areas that will receive fluoridated water.

“The SHA board decided that the health benefits outweigh all arguments against water fluoridation for the population described in the consultation and remains confident with this decision.”