grammarword-choice
Is it fine to use due to in place of because of ? How about the other way around? Are any of these sentences ungrammatical?
He was lost because of the storm.
He was lost due to the storm.
He lost his way due to the storm.
He lost his way because of the storm.
Here's a question that the Google NGram Viewer can actually help with. Look at the values on the Y axis. The usage of "Due to" at the beginning of a sentence has reached 0.0008% in 2008. That may not sound like much, but it represents orders of magnitude more frequency than most of the NGrams offered as proof on this SE site.
Only the severest and most arbitrary prescriptivist would argue that all these instances are wrong.
They are not interchangeable in meaning, although either one forms a grammatically correct sentence in your examples.
One might think someone would have posted a more complete answer by now.
This "One" is, a 'generic you'. It refers to a generic/unspecified person. 'One' referred to FF when he wrote that, and to me when I read it, and to you when you read it (seperately to each one of us, not to all of us a a class of 'ones who tink that ...').
This "someone" is a 'generic specific' individual. When 'the "one"' in this sentence anticipates a resolution, he thinks "Won't someone do something? A person could have posted a more complete answer by now". If this answer that I'm writing is "more complete" (or if we ignore "more complete", and just anticipate "an answer"), then I have chosen to be that someone.
For a more thorough, formal approach, see the links posted in the comments (by tchrist and FumbleFingers). Also from FF, you will likely be better served at ELL (this is ELU).
Best Answer
(EDIT: This is a traditional set of rules for "due to" and "because of", but there is disagreement over whether these rules apply to modern English. See further discussion below.)
They are not interchangeable.
These examples highlight the difference between "due to" and "because of":
In short, "because of" modifies a verb, but "due to" modifies a noun (or pronoun). In common usage, though, you will often hear/see them being used interchangeably. More detail can be found in this article.
EDIT: See also this article, which mentions that
EDIT: Grammar Girl discusses "due to" in an article with references to Strunk & White, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style, and my paraphrase of her conclusion is that traditional restrictions on "due to" are being increasingly abandoned by modern style guides and may eventually be abolished altogether.