  ::::::You're missing something with Russell's SECOND hypothesis and Radz's reply.  Russell's analysis was premised on Majorana's theory, while Radz's countertheory was based on Le Sage.  So you can't just say that Russell did away with the shielding possibility completely.  You need to show some error in Radz's approach.  The paper appeared initially in a standard Russian peer-reviewed journal, but the possibility of an error remains.  Can you put your finger on it?  If not, then give up your argument (since you've spotted me inertia now).  Russell's THIRD hypothesis is still in play, of course, as well as some more recent suggestions. 