59 points by ranit 6 hours ago | 6 comments
flohofwoe 4 minutes ago
Hmm, most German forests are also vast monoculture 'tree farms' and have been for the last 250 years (also caused by large scale deforestation in the centuries before). In the Ore Mountains we also have those yellow clouds of pollen coming off spruce trees every few years, covering everything with a thin yellow dust layer, yet I'm not aware that the number of people with pollen allergies is exceptionally high (oth, maybe it was 200 years ago and by now the population has become immune, or maybe the tree pollen in Japan is just more aggressive...).
hastily3114 1 hour ago
Interesting. I noticed that many people have hay fever in Japan, but I always just assumed it was genetic or something. I wonder if living there for a long time will make you more sensitive to pollen
timr 27 minutes ago
As someone who has suffered from hay fever for my entire life, and also lived in many different locations, almost every move came with a 2-3 year reprieve from my symptoms while my body "discovered" the fun new local allergens.
30 minutes ago
mc3301 49 minutes ago
Lots of people I know who moved here as adults have developed pollen allergies over the years. Some after a 2 or 3 years, some after 10.
komali2 43 minutes ago
I'd been wondering why my allergies go nuts every time I visit Japan, but never really suffered in other Asian countries. Cool to know now.

Upside is I discovered the trick of just taking fexofenadine every single day which had the side effect of solving my chronic sinus infections.

plutokras 15 minutes ago
[flagged]
timr 14 minutes ago
This article sadly spends more time on political debate triggers than the question at hand (dear BBC: you don't need to make everything about climate change), but Japan's forest being a monoculture is undeniably a fact. I've hiked all over Japan, and these plantation forests are everywhere. Even mountains like Koya-san in Kyoto, surrounding 700-year-old temples, are essentially 100% forested.

I spent four days this fall hiking through a fairly remote part of Wakayama, and it was remarkable how much of that time was in new-growth monoculture forests. Places that I thought would be almost completely inaccessible to vehicles had been clear-cut and replaced with cedar within the last 30 years (based on the size of the trees). At the ridgeline of 2000 meter peaks -- places with no road for many kilometers in any direction -- you'd suddenly see a clear transition line from the plantation forests to whatever natural vegetation was at the top of the mountain, and there were even a few places where entire mountains had been clear-cut from bottom to top, in preparation for a new round of planting.

A major factor that the article doesn't discuss is that there simply aren't enough people to manage these forests anymore. Even if the money were allocated, the generation that did the forest management is now elderly, and there's not really replacement labor. Even with heavy machinery, I can't imagine how it could be accomplished today. Some of these plantations would probably require road construction to reach them by modern techniques.

pjc50 48 minutes ago
Japan being 68% forest is an astounding stat.
vkou 45 minutes ago
75% of it is mountains, and not exactly inhabited.
lloydatkinson 43 minutes ago
Only two types of tree? Even in the 1970's surely that should have been cause for concern.
Mashimo 30 minutes ago
This might have something to do with it:

> When the sugi and hinoki forests were first planted in the 1950s and 60s, they weren't meant to stand forever. At the time, it was assumed they would be gradually cut down and replanted over time, as had been the case before the war. But as Japan's economy boomed in the late 60s and 70s, major cities like Kobe and Tokyo grew rapidly, and it ended up being cheaper to import wood from other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

aaron695 1 hour ago
[dead]