I'm a "go fo it" vote with these additional thoughts. (1) If you are broadcasting radio now, the time requirement should not too much more, right (a question)? (2) As your readers give you ideas about the best technology, you might want to give us an idea of the cost. If we split the amount 1,000 ways, it might be very doable. Voice is excellent for the air waves. We could all use with more "sly devil" (see my latest post) and great science communications. And wouldn't you reach a different/larger audience?
Via "radio", in any form, would likely spread real science -- as opposed to politicized science -- farther and wider. This we definitely need.
And while your voice is superb for radio, Anthony, as soon as I played your demo, memories of oh so many voices on NPR affiliates everywhere filled my head. Your delivery sounds like a public radio voice -- which then reminds me of that standard of NPR broadcasting, "All Things Considered -- except the stuff that doesn't fit our agenda".
Notwithstanding all of the above, go for it. I'd back you, but the allegedly rapidly recovering economy hasn't found its way to me yet. (Commercial real estate sucks.)
Go for it!
You're right, it is a big commitment. Do you have the time? And as you wrote, there are a LOT of nutcases out there. Maybe try putting three or four podcasts in the can, play them back after a week and evaluate then.