The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum. Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.
In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.
It all smoothes out over the averages.
Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.
In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:
0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21
Or this:
0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1
Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.
You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.