Amazing how you think your claim is better informed than those from a primary source. You're right, the mystery solvent must have been it.
"Considered safe" for how long? For continuous life exposure? For the length of time it takes to make a medical X-Ray? It doesn't say.
The OP is right. There is zero useful information in that statement.
People are bashing the article not because it is from the NY Post but because there is a zero evidence that being on a ship a hundred miles away was more dangerous than actually being at the site or in tokyo. The article is filled with all kinds of misunderstandings about radioactivity that are accepted wholesale by the reporter to drum up a good story.
Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation.
The biggest joke of all has been how the "safety limits" of different types of radiation were all magically raised after Fukushima.
I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points.
There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.
Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.
From listening to those people, you might almost think the numbers were factual information to be evaluated thoughtfully!