Safest places to live in UK in nuclear attack as expert issues dire warning

Following US attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran, fears over escalating nuclear conflict are being felt across the globe, including the UK. And many have expressed concerns over where exactly would be safest, in the event of a catastrophe closer to home.
Iran 's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has warned there will be "everlasting consequences" following US President Donald Trump's confirmation that "great American Warriors" had carried out a "very successful attack" on the sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Taking to social media platform X, Mr Araghchi wrote: "Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behaviour. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defence, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people."
And as fears over the potential for "World War III" continue to rumble, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has issued the following statement: "Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.
"The situation in the Middle East remains volatile, and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis."
Here, the Mirror looks at the safest places to live in the UK, should the worst come to pass.
According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP): "The best way to protect you and your family before, during, and after a nuclear blast is getting inside the centre of a building or basement. On August 6, 1945, Mr Eizo Nomura was in the basement of a building in Hiroshima, about 170 meters from ground zero. He survived the atomic bombing and died in 1982 at the age of 84. Most people within a few hundred metres of a nuclear detonation are not likely to survive, especially if unprepared.
"Be inside before the fallout arrives. After a detonation, you will have 10 minutes or more to find an adequate shelter before fallout arrives. If a multi-story building or a basement can be safely reached within a few minutes of the explosion, go there immediately. The safest buildings have brick or concrete walls. Underground parking garages and subways can also provide good shelter."
With this in mind, many would automatically assume that London, with its vast underground network, would be the safest location, with the tube tunnels allowing citizens some protection from the blast. This is, of course, where many Londoners sought refuge during the dark days of the Blitz.
However, there are mixed opinions on this front with experts fearing that modern nuclear weapons could penetrate much further than the bombs of World War II, meaning even the 58-metre-deep Hampstead station may still be too close to the surface.
Andrew Futter, a Professor of International Politics at the University of Leicester, previously advised My London that the Underground "probably wouldn't be deep enough if there was a direct hit".
Therefore, in the event that a nation targets one of the UK's major cities - from London to Edinburgh - Brits would need to be outside of the blast zone to have the best chance of survival.
When it comes to the reach of nuclear blasts, there are several factors to bear in mind including a radiation radius of 153 km2, a fireball radius of approximately 197 km2, an air blast radius between 321 km2 and 1,420 km2 and a thermal radiation radius of 12,960 km2.
Although these distances can vary depending on weather conditions, property researchers have previously put together a list of places which should be safer than the cities. These 20 locations, listed by property portal EMoov back in 2017, are outside of the immediate range of blasts on major cities...
Cornwall
Weymouth
Folkestone
Dover
Margate
Clacton-on-Sea
Felixstowe
Brixworth
Bideford
Aberystwyth
Skegness
Isle of Anglesey
Barrow in Furness
Lancaster
Whitby
Carlisle
Dumfries
Berwick-upon-Tweed
Inverness
However, some of these areas are still close enough to blast sites to be affected by radiation swept over by winds. Therefore, the remote island Foula, on the Shetland Isles, could well be the safest place in the UK in this instance.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NBC News

23 minutes ago

• NBC News

U.K.'s Starmer says it's important to 'de-escalate the situation' after U.S. strikes on Iran

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other European leaders are calling for a resolution after the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities while also warning that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. NBC News' Molly Hunter reports on how other nations, including China, are responding to the 23, 2025

Daily Mirror

26 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

'Trump let Iran make nukes he's mad about - he's at war for a Nobel Peace Prize'

If there is one disease which lies behind the constant spasms of horror with which our days our currently blighted, it is the human race's inability to remember what happened five minutes ago. Once upon a time, journalists would go to the pub, and then bed. Sometimes they'd go to bed with each other, because they'd been to the pub. But they'd wake up in the morning and go "blimey, an earthquake in Japan. I had better find a good story of my own about this". And they would have to go deeper into a story and its origins. Today they don't drink, barely know their colleagues, and wake up to emails from a 24-rolling news ecosystem that demands constant feeding. Journalists think "blimey, everyone else is ahead of me" and scramble to catch up. No-one has time to think, which is why no-one has told you that Donald Trump just bombed Iran for making nuclear weapons that Donald Trump let them make. I wish I was making this stuff up, but no-one's got time for that. It's imperative people start remembering how we got to the cliff edge, because we did it by skipping about blindfold and if we don't stop soon we're going to go right over. America gave Iran nuclear technology in 1957. The aim was 'atoms for peace', to create wealth, and allies in the Middle East. After years of the world's greatest democracy propping up a cruel monarchy, the shah fell, the mullahs arose, and Iran was in less-friendly hands. The 1980s was taken up with a war against Iraq, but in the 1990s two Gulf Wars and continued US tinkering led the mullahs to the not-entirely-mad opinion that a nuclear weapon was the best way of keeping the Great Satan at bay. Israel, quite reasonably, was less than chuffed. And as technology sped up it became imperative to find ways of stopping Iran getting a weapon that apocalyptic fundamentalists would see very little reason not to detonate, slap-bang in the middle of a resource-rich, conflict-heavy trade route. And so in 2015, six countries signed a deal with Iran. In return for checks that it wasn't building The Bomb, everyone was open for business. And for three years the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action worked. Germany, China, Russia, France, the UK, China and the US lifted economic sanctions, and every 90 days would ratify everything was non-nuclear and tickety-boo. But such a vague agreement could not withstand the arrival of Donald Trump, whose tiny hands happily dismantled everything that made Barack Obama look good. In 2018 when Benjamin Netanyahu - yes it really is all the same people - gave a speech claiming his spy agency Mossad had stolen 100,000 documents showing Iran had lied and was enriching uranium, Trump saw a 30-second clip and decided it must be true. It might have been. The other nations in the deal didn't think so. But rather than renegotiate, send in inspectors, react as any sane human might, Trump just went "nah", and pulled out of the deal. The other countries tried to keep it going. The International Atomic Energy Authority said there was no enrichment. But the US whacked the regime with sanctions, and Iran said it too would pull out unless they were lifted. They were not. In 2020 the IAEA said Iran had tripled its uranium stockpile, a year later it blocked access to inspectors, and by 2023 it had weapons-grade material. Over the same period, Iran's population suffered. A third were ground into poverty. The economic woes weakened the regime just enough to make it lash out. Iran was behind terror attacks worldwide, former Republican Guards were linked to planned assassinations of ex-Trump officials, and it faced internal protests too. Then Iran funded the October 7 massacre by Hamas. Cue Netanyahu, who was leading a rickety coalition and facing jail the moment it fell, cue the war in Gaza, cue pro-Palestine protests, and cue a lot of blaming Iran. This isn't hard to figure out or remember. It's just that the constant churn of new things to hold our attention never scrolls back to the start of the liveblog, or delves into the third page of search results. Iran is definitely run by a bunch of rotten eggs who could well have been pulling the radioactive wool over the world's eyes in return for a financial boost to stabilise their rule. But the best way of fixing that wasn't walking away from the only half-arsed deal anyone had. It was making a better deal, and if Trump had actually written his own biography rather than paying someone else to make him look good, he might have known how to do it. Trump's withdrawal was supported by Israel and Saudi Arabia, with 63% of US voters, most of the planet and his own advisers screaming at him not to. It was "a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made", he insisted. "It didn't bring peace and it never will." And so he destabilised and raised the oil price with sanctions, screwed regional trade which meant the price of wheat rose and people starved across several countries, and gave fresh targets to jihadis. Back in office for a second time, Trump wants a legacy and more than anything he wants the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got, largely for diplomatic efforts with the Muslim world. Trump pledged to end the war in Ukraine "on day one" and it only got worse; he suggested building a golden beachside golf club in Gaza, and got laughed at. So his eye turned to Ayatollah Khameini, and the country which the US has done so much to make worse, for so long. Anyone with an ounce of realism in their body might wonder at the convenience with which the B-2 bombers and their bunker-busting payload were able to fly in unmolested, after the Israelis had suddenly switched attention from Gaza to take out the Iranian air defences a week earlier. It does seem odd that the imminent threat Netanyahu had predicted in 2018 bloomed 7 years later, 6 months after Trump returned to office and only after his other draft entries for the peace prize had evaporated. We might also ponder why the US president with the worst personal polls in history at this point in his leadership might be in want of some surgical strikes to appease his Muslim-hating base, and whether it would do him any harm if there were a couple of small terror attacks on US bases that would give an excuse to bomb the mullahs to the table. And having thought this far, we could ask ourselves how close to the edge of nuclear catastrophe Trump will allow the world to careen before he picks up the phone to "make a deal" which will be the bigliest, most beautiful peace deal of all time. And whether it will be worse than the one we used to have, before he ripped it to shreds out of petulance and exploited the disastrous consequences for the sake of vanity. With Iran alone, Trump has cost the world trillions. Now he is about to march an entire planet to the gates of hell, just so he can look good for marching everyone back again. And this plan works if he is a diplomatic genius able to unpick decades of crapola, and capable of remembering why and how it happened in the first place. But when all he watches is 24-hour rolling news, with constant updates about new stuff that isn't new at all, the best we can hope for is that the Nobel Committee gives him the prize now, just to make him stop.

Scotsman

27 minutes ago

• Scotsman

Industrial strategy 'will drive tens of thousands of new jobs in Scotland', as business power cut promised

Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Sir Keir Starmer's industrial strategy will "drive tens of thousands of new jobs" in Scotland, the Scottish Secretary has claimed. Ian Murray said the areas featured in the decade-long plan "are really a microcosm of the entire Scottish economy". The strategy includes specific funding to train people for work in defence, engineering, digital and construction roles. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Secretary Ian Murray | PA Meanwhile, electricity costs for thousands of businesses will be cut by up to 25 per cent by scrapping green levies to help them compete with foreign rivals. The Prime Minister said the plan marked a 'turning point for Britain's economy' by supporting key industries where there is potential for growth. Launching the strategy on Monday at the site of the former Cockenzie power station in East Lothian, which is being redeveloped with UK government funding, Mr Murray said: "The big positive thing from a Scottish perspective is the eight sectors that are part of that industrial strategy, developed with business and sectors, are really a microcosm of the entire Scottish economy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What does the future hold for Cockenzie after its famous chimneys were brought down in 2016? "So whether it be defence, professional services, financial services, life sciences, AI, all of those kinds of parts of the Scottish economy are key. Scotland will drive a lot of this industrial strategy." Mr Murray added: "It's a really good news story for the Scottish economy and will drive tens of thousands of new jobs." 'Stifling growth' But Mr Murray argued policies pursued by the Scottish Government, such as its opposition to new nuclear power, risked stifling this growth. He pointed to the 10,000 jobs promised as part of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk. "That investment could be coming to Scotland, but it's currently not because of the de facto ban on nuclear here," Mr Murray said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Likewise with defence. We have a very, very big defence footprint in Scotland. In fact, the SDR [strategic defence review] and the investment in defence will disproportionately benefit Scotland in terms of jobs and that growth. "We have to look at that as an economic opportunity. But if that is stifled, it's not going to happen." UK ministers target SNP over munitions UK ministers have criticised the Scottish Government's policy of not providing public funding for munitions. Sir Keir said the decade-long plan would deliver 'the long-term certainty and direction British businesses need to invest' during an 'era of global uncertainty'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'This industrial strategy marks a turning point for Britain's economy and a clear break from the short-termism and sticking plasters of the past.' The strategy's key areas The strategy focuses on eight areas where the UK is already strong and there is potential for further growth: advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, defence, digital, financial services, life sciences, and professional and business services. Manufacturers have warned 'crippling' power costs are far higher for UK businesses than competitors overseas. From 2027, a new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will cut costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour for over 7,000 manufacturing firms by exempting them from levies on bills including the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market.