Youre missing something with Russells SECOND hypothesis and Radzs reply  Russells analysis was premised on Majoranas theory while Radzs countertheory was based on Le Sage  So you cant just say that Russell did away with the shielding possibility completely  You need to show some error in Radzs approach  The paper appeared initially in a standard Russian peerreviewed journal but the possibility of an error remains  Can you put your finger on it  If not then give up your argument since youve spotted me inertia now  Russells THIRD hypothesis is still in play of course as well as some more recent suggestions