Pulsar planets would be bathed in intense radiation and would be quite
different from those in our solar system. "These planets must be
among the least hospitable places in the galaxy for the formation of
life," said Charles Beichman, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, both in
Pasadena, Calif.

Now, I'm not picking on Charles here, but as a follow-up to the comments I recently made about "accepted wisdom", I think this guy fails to understand the possibilities of a <url=>"Pulsar Planet"</url>

Let's think about what happens here:

A Supernova occurs with new element synthesis in the titanic explosion. Fresh matter is ejected, and some condenses into planets of Earth-scale or thereabouts. These are going to be HOT internally - all those new unstable elements fermenting away and decaying to more stable isotopes. So, we have a guaranteed geologically active body in orbit around an enormous energy source. Tidal and magnetic energy will add to the heat the world experiences, so it'll be very active - tectonics, volcanics, maybe lots of little plates?

Sure, the SURFACE will be sleeted with hellish radiation, but go down a few tens of metres of rock and you've got a much more benign environment for subterranean microbial life. Energy, matter, steady change.

Life, anyone?

Sure, not as we know it, but entirely credible - IF there's enough H2O down there.

It's possible that the volatiles all got baked out in the early heat, but there MUST be a snowline somewhere, even in a supernova, and there's trapped crystalline water in minerals - a whole planet of that stuff will sweat out some water.

So don't let anyone tell you that something is impossible - they just haven't looked at it from the right angle...