I have no problem with folks mapping cosmic ray intensties as a function of time over various routes used by passenger aircraft.
But, I find it annoying that people publish articles about it in the popular media without actually specifying any radiation dose information. How about providing:
1. the average estimated total radiation dose to people on the ground;
2. the average radiation dose for a flight from Washington DC to LA on San Francisco;
3. the dose limit that applies to flight crews?
That would provide some useful perspective.
And, additional perspective could be provided by telling us the dose rates in terrestrial hot spots, like the one in India, where the does rate is about 10 times the average dose rate for people around the globe. I have not followed this for decades, but the last I read, health effects were not detected in the populations of those unusually high terrestrial radiation areas.
The media tends to get scary numbers by using statistical analyses that show very low additional dose rates to a very large number of people, and multiply those by very low individual risk numbers gleened from linearly extrapolating the effects of high does toward zero dose rate.
On the other hand, I just needed some medical CAT scans, and they gave my eyes 10 times the allowed annual dose to professionals who are monitored for radiation - coming to 75% of the short-term dose that is deterministically known to cause cataracks with about 8 years of lag time. I was scheduled for more x-rays, but asked to be switched to MRIs instead, because I knew the risk. But, you don't read scare stories in the media about medical sources of radiation.