I remember back in graduate school being mildly upbraided by my thesis advisor for using 'hopefully' in sentence. At that time (1974), it was only used in common speech and many regarded it as 'shorthand.' I think today is is commonly accepted. When I submitted the first draft of my dissertation, he struck out all the uses of the phrase 'due to.' He noted that the rent can be do but something that happens in an experiment is 'a result of.' As with hopefully 'due to' is pretty much common usage these day.
I hate beating this horse but this may interest you. If others don't care, look away, don't read this.
Before retiring, my last job for 10 years was copy-editing scientific journals (mostly physics and chemistry). The usage of "due to" vs "because of" or "owing to" came up all the time.
From the web somewhere, I found this good explanation: These examples highlight the difference between "due to" and "because of": He failed because of bad planning. 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.
As for "hopefully", I read somewhere once that the word we really needed was "hope-ably" but it never caught one.
Although people might dispute it based on my responses on this thread, I am not a grammar nerd. Far from it. Working in publishing did not make me an expert in grammar, spelling or anything else. But time and time again when researching an ambiguous turn of phrase, I discovered just how many things that we think are rules of grammar simply are not and never were. This seems to bother some people, and I don't understand why.