Heck, I'm sure there are zillions of "types of putty". NASA originally used a certain type of putty (let's call it their First Choice). The problem was that its manufacturer had to stop making it to protect against risk of lawsuit. So, NASA was forced by circumstances to switch away from its First Choice, due ultimately to the actions of "environmentalists".
Since they couldn't use their First Choice, it follows that they were using their Second (or worse) Choice. It doesn't matter that there are "lots of types of putty", the point here is that even if NASA chose the best possible type of putty available, it still wasn't their First Choice, so it was bound to be worse.
The question is: why should NASA have been prevented from using their First Choice? You don't even seem to understand that this is the issue which is being raised in the article.
It's NASA's responsibility to develop products/equipment to the shuttle's unique requirements. Same for the foam.
But they did develop foam suited to the shuttle's unique requirements. Then "environmental" regulation prevented them from using it (their First Choice)!
Thus they had to use their Second (or worse) Choice, which was bound to be worse than their First Choice.
Again, the question is why they should have been prevented from using their First Choice?
I suppose the question is one of trade-offs. Is the trade-off worth it, to prevent NASA from using its best materials on the space shuttle, for the supposed "environmental" gains in question? If not, you should be outraged at the wasted lives and shuttles and money (these "environmental" regulations cost you lots of money, since the shuttles were effectively destroyed by them). Why aren't you?
These facts remain:
1) Asbestos holds up extremely well to flame
2) Coming up with new materials is not a trivial process
3) Materials science has always progressed based on failures. Sometimes conditions can't be fully recreated in tests, and sometimes failures in the field are tragic ones.
4) There are a limited number of materials, and adding new parameters can make it difficult or impossible to work as well within the existing parameters. The O-ring material has to be formable, noncorrosive, strong, resistant to heat, and resistant to cold while maintaining solidity and yet not getting brittle (and perhaps I am missing others). Adding any one parameter (e.g., "environmental friendliness") that's not met by an existing formulation makes it harder to meet all of the above.
5) If it works, don't fix it. Abandoning an existing formula, even if there is no real increase in any of the design parameters, means there's always a chance you'll make a mistake which you might miss in the lab. Or that the fabricators will make mistakes when they make their copies of your lab prototype.
So for a number of reasons, in dealing with life or death matters (not to mention a major government program and huge amount of money), it's a mistake to let a trivial amount of asbestos or freon dictate a design change.
The only way this is not a scandal is if it appears that the new designs are no worse than the original ones.
To a certain extent I will agree with you. Where I work equipment is required to operate in extremes of radiation, heat or cold. Our engineers must evaluate equipment to be installed in these areas and certify them prior to their installation.
However you may be wrong concerning the putty. Chemical compatibility of the O-ring may have limited the choices of putty that could be used. An engineer then may certify the temperature sensitive putty with the knowledge that very few days at the Cape will reach the low temperature to impact a launch. The true problem is that concerns of engineers were overridden by internal managerial politics that were pushing the launch schedule.