120 Residents Attend Fukagawa Drift-Object Briefing; "We Say What We Don't Know" Ahead of the 16th's Review

The briefing held at 2 p.m. on the 12th at a Fukagawa community hall was, as previously reported, announced to the local neighborhood association, but attendance was open to anyone interested, and the seats were nearly full fifteen minutes before it began. The Third Appraisal Center said roughly 120 people attended in the end — a sign that interest has not faded three weeks after the August 21 discovery.

A lead researcher opened by walking through the previously reported timeline on slides: the September 2 working group report that found no fault in the measurement or imaging systems, and the belief that the liquid's failure to follow the container's tilt likely stems from some property of the substance itself. "Ruling out one suspect is progress, in that sense," the researcher said, repeating the phrasing used at the 9th's press briefing. "I've lost count of how many times I've heard the same explanation," said one attendee, a shop owner, 55, "but it was explained in a way that made clear this isn't standing still."

Questions during the Q&A session clustered around the slight difference in lettering style among the three containers' markings. One attendee echoed the previously reported neighborhood chair's question: "If the markings differ, doesn't that mean the origins might differ too?" The researcher answered, "We can neither confirm nor rule out multiple origins at this stage. Analysis of the lettering continues, but there's no new conclusion as of today," adding, "Frankly, saying we don't know is all we can honestly say right now." Another attendee, a woman in her seventies, asked simply, "I just want to know it isn't dangerous." The researcher chose her words carefully: "No finding suggesting danger has been confirmed so far. But that isn't the same as 'proven safe.'"

As previously reported, "leave unopened, in continued storage" is expected to be formally placed on the 16th committee's agenda for the first time. One attendee asked whether that, too, would count as a resolution. "Continued storage can be one conclusion the review reaches," the researcher said. "It doesn't mean postponing forever." A neighborhood association officer, 64, said, "Whether they open it or not, I think residents can accept it as long as we understand why the decision was made."

The neighborhood chair, 68, previously reported, told this paper afterward, "I'd said beforehand that more residents wanted to hear the reasoning than the conclusion itself, and today gave proper time to exactly that." He added, "Even if something is decided on the 16th, I think everyone understands this story continues beyond that point" — a note of resignation to a matter likely to run long.

As previously reported, monitoring measurements have fully shifted from three times daily to twice; this was explained again, with the Center reiterating there have been no signs of abnormality and no health complaints from the area. No objections were raised on this point.

Asked again about the policy of releasing detailed liquid data only after the committee's conclusion, the researcher repeated the earlier reasoning: releasing data ahead of a conclusion risks prejudicing it, so the order will not change. One attendee, identifying themselves as a graduate student, was overheard muttering, "Frustrating for a researcher, but it's a sound principle."

The Center again said it would record the day's questions and answers and share them, where possible, with the 16th's committee. The researcher closed with the same words used at the 9th's briefing: "This case has gone unanswered a long time, but I think continuing to say plainly that we don't know is also part of the appraisal work." One attendee remarked, "Hearing the same words twice, I finally believed she meant it."

Later in the session, questions turned to daily life. A homemaker, 48, who lives near the site, said, "When the cordon was up, I changed my child's route to school. It's back to normal now, but I can't fully put it out of my mind knowing that container is still there." The researcher reiterated that the containers, as previously reported, are held in a quarantine section at the Third Appraisal Center, and that nothing remains at the discovery site itself, stressing there is no ongoing direct impact on daily life.

Some attendees were also curious about unrelated drift-object cases, previously reported, involving Lineages 31, 148 and 149. "The Fukagawa case and these other lineages are handled by different teams and reviewed in different forums," the researcher said, "but I understand that residents' unease tends to spread toward drift objects in general. We try to keep clear, case by case, what is known and what isn't."

Watching from the back of the hall, this paper's reporter noted that, compared with the raw uncertainty of three weeks ago, attendees now carried something closer to patience than urgency. As previously reported, the case may look like it is back where it started, even as the range of possibilities has quietly narrowed. Near the end, when the Center's spokesperson, who moderated the session, said, "If there's any new development, we'll report back in this same hall," a number of people in the audience were seen nodding quietly.

The quarantine committee will weigh whether to open the containers on the 16th, taking today's questions into account, with an outcome expected the same day. The Center says it will hold a briefing for the Fukagawa neighborhood association promptly once a conclusion is reached.