A strong typhoon battered Japan’s Izu Islands with heavy rain on October 9, 2025, prompting warnings about flooding and landslides and sending hundreds of people to evacuation centres. Record rainfall was reported in parts of the island chain, which lies about 280 kilometres, or 174 miles, south of Tokyo.
A special heavy-rain warning was issued temporarily as the storm passed near the islands. Kyodo News reported that the most exceptional rainfall affected the southern part of the chain. The available reports did not specify totals, the exact number of evacuees or how many islands were under the warning, but they described the rainfall as record-setting.
The storm was also linked to one death away from the island chain. A man fishing in Oiso, in Kanagawa Prefecture on Japan’s main island of Honshu, was swept away by waves and died, according to the Associated Press. The report did not identify him or provide further circumstances surrounding the incident.
Images released by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s Bureau of Port and Harbor showed waves striking the shore at Kaminato Port on Hachijo Island. As the typhoon moved through the area, the national government urged residents to remain alert for landslides and flooding. Hundreds sought shelter in evacuation centres, indicating that the response extended beyond warnings even though the supplied accounts did not describe damage to homes, roads or other infrastructure.
The temporary special warning and evacuation-centre use were responses to conditions on the Izu chain, while the reported fatality occurred in Kanagawa on Honshu. That distinction matters because the available evidence does not place the death on the islands themselves. It also does not establish that the typhoon made landfall in the Izu Islands; Kyodo described the storm as passing near the chain, and the AP described its rain battering the islands.
The two reports agree on the central sequence: intense rain affected islands south of the capital, parts of the chain received record rainfall, authorities warned of secondary hazards and hundreds of residents took refuge. They provide less detail on the typhoon’s strength, path, wind speeds or subsequent movement, so those points cannot be established from the supplied material.
By the end of the period covered in the reports, the special heavy-rain warning had been lifted after being in place temporarily. The broader advice to watch for floods and slope failures reflected the continuing dangers associated with saturated ground and heavy runoff. No additional casualties were cited in the evidence. The confirmed toll in the supplied coverage therefore remained one death: the fisherman swept away in Oiso while the typhoon affected the region.
