Low G effects on permanent space dwellers

there have been many sf books written on the idea that the decendants
would not choise to return. the consensus is that basically the human
race would split into at least two races. one that basically was the
same as humans are now, with a little bit of evolving. the other was
more like birds in that they used wings to get around in zero g.
eventually the two would be totally seperated. most of the writers
believed (or indicated in their stories) that the zero g race was a
dead end. it could get along in space, but it could not handle
acceleration needed to get supplies in a quick time. in time of a
disaster, they would not be able to use ships to bring the materials
back to their station.

research has indicated that a rotation of 2 rpm or less would not be
difficult to adapt to. that means for a inertia force (some call it
certifical force) of 1 g, you would about 500 meters station. larger
ones would spin slower.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
>
> If I can start a new thread:
>
> I've read some about the effects of prolonged stays in space on
human
> physiology. You would lose bone mass, have calcium build up (from
the
> breakup of your bones), weakened muscles in the back and neck, and
> also cardiovascular circulation problems. These problems all
address
> the problem from the standpoint that one would need to return to a
1G
> environment someday. If a settlement never intended to return to a
1G
> environment, would artificial gravity be necessary? Would the
> physiological problems select against humans? Would we be able to
> adapt in our current form without going through long and risky
> evolution? Would our plants yield enough food in zero G, or would
> they struggle, too? Would the second generation of space travelers
> fare better than their parents since they would develop from
> conception in low G?
>
> If Zero G is too risky, then what about a .5 G or .75 G
settlement?
> It seems to me that at least some groups would want to live in
lower
> G environments if it was possible, since it would be easier on bad
> backs, and easier to produce certain items. Gravity in a spinning
> space station seems like it would not be exactly the same as Earth
> gravity, but the sense of motion would be very different, so the
> inner ears may have some adjustment time, anyway. It seems to me
the
> two primary advantages of a 1G settlement are that it makes return
to
> Earth easier (though still expensive, and only possible for those
> that live near Earth anyway), and that it allows greater
> accelerations. People adapted to 1G would be comfortable
accelerating
> at 10m/s per second, while those used to lower gravities would
> struggle at that rate.
>
> If a society had no need to accelerate fast, and no desire to
return
> to Earth, and it's not medically necessary, why would they need
gravity?